ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Blacklisting

Jim McGovern: What recent discussions he has had with Ministers in the Scottish Government on blacklisting in Scotland.

David Mundell: I regularly meet Scottish Government Ministers to discuss a wide range of issues. I commend the work of the Scottish Affairs Committee on investigating the deplorable activity of blacklisting. The Committee’s final report will be given careful consideration by the Government when it is published.

Jim McGovern: I thank the Minister for his response. Perhaps the most ridiculous case of blacklisting that I am aware of is that of the late, great Dundonian, Mr Syd Scroggie. He lost a leg and the sight in both his eyes serving his country during the second world war. He found himself on a blacklist. What was his crime? He had written to The Scotsman newspaper to commend the then Dundee district council for buying a portrait of Nelson Mandela. Will the Minister liaise with the Scottish Government to ensure that the odious practice of blacklisting is wiped out?

David Mundell: When the Scottish Affairs Committee report is published, I will undertake to discuss its recommendations with the appropriate Scottish Government Ministers.

Brian H Donohoe: As someone who has been blacklisted three times in the past, I can tell the Minister that it is an obnoxious way of going about business. Will he ensure that legislation is put in place to ensure that people like me and many others in Scotland do not have to face such a practice in future?

David Mundell: The Government take this matter very seriously. As the hon. Gentleman will know, legislation is already in place in the form of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010. We await the Scottish Affairs Committee report to see whether it proposes any further measures.

Katy Clark: The practice has clearly been going on for decades, and the law is not working. Has the Minister looked at the legislation to see whether further action is required to ensure that we bring the practice to an end?

David Mundell: We have looked at the regulations, which were brought in by the previous Government. We very much respect the work of the Scottish Affairs Committee and if it finds that the current legislation is not working, we will of course look at the matter.

Referendum Campaign

Mark Menzies: What steps the Government have taken to fulfil their pledge to campaign to keep Scotland as part of the UK.

Michael Moore: The United Kingdom Government are providing evidence and analysis to allow voters to make an informed choice about Scotland within the United Kingdom. We are publishing analysis papers on all the key issues throughout this year and next.

Mark Menzies: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Scotland analysis programme is already highlighting the clear benefits of Scotland being part of the UK, and of the UK having Scotland within it?

Michael Moore: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend on that. It demonstrates that Scotland enjoys the best of both worlds, with a strong Scottish Parliament and a strong voice here in Westminster. Our economy is able to benefit from the scale and support of the whole UK. Our place in the world is all the stronger, and our voice in the world all the louder, for being part of the United Kingdom.

Anas Sarwar: Yesterday, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce highlighted what it called information gaps, which are a result of Scotland not yet knowing how it would handle business and income taxes and not yet knowing what its currency, its status in the EU or its relationship with international organisations would be. What will this Government do to ensure that all voters in Scotland have the facts, rather than the assertions being made by the Scottish National party and the Scottish Government?

Michael Moore: I commend the Scottish Chambers of Commerce for the work that it is doing, along with others. This week, the Scotland Institute has also highlighted some important deficiencies in the nationalists’ arguments on defence. Our papers on devolution, on the currency and on financial services are setting out the arguments and analysis so that Scotland can make an informed choice. I remain confident that we will decide to stay part of the United Kingdom.

Menzies Campbell: May I commend my right hon. Friend on the positive case that he is making? As he has just been joined on the Treasury Bench by the Secretary of State for Defence, will he ensure that all Government Departments including the Ministry of Defence take every opportunity to examine critically the defence proposals of the Scottish National party and the Scottish Government, which have yet again been the subject of strong criticism in an independent report this week?

Michael Moore: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a very important point. I can assure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is very much engaged in this entire debate. Central to that debate will be the SNP’s attempt to have it both ways by
	reluctantly and belatedly signing up for NATO—three quarters of Scots support it, so that was perhaps inevitable—while not being willing to accept the obligations and rules that go with it, including a nuclear umbrella as part of the strategic concept.

Angus MacNeil: It emerged at the weekend that insiders of the no campaign against Scottish independence secretly call the campaign “project fear”. This is a campaign based on scaremongering and negativity. Is the Secretary of State embarrassed?

Michael Moore: I think people on the pro-UK side of the campaign could show their Twitter feeds to anyone to show what negativity and scaremongering are all about. I think, too, that hon. Gentleman should be a little careful about casting aspersions and should concentrate on getting on with the proper arguments. From his side of the argument, we have so far seen no arguments and no detail.

Bob Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the thought that a possible independent Scotland would have an army? Would that independent Scotland be able to employ the same number of Scottish soldiers that the British Army employs at the moment?

Michael Moore: My hon. Friend, whose distinguished track record in these matters is well known to people across the House, makes a very important point. This week, the report of the Scotland Institute—an independent body—has put real and serious questions to the SNP and the yes campaign that they cannot answer.

Home Buyers

Mark Lazarowicz: Which Department is responsible for promoting in Scotland the UK Government’s policies on supporting home buyers; and if he will make a statement.

David Mundell: The Government are providing wide-ranging support to help people buy their homes. That support includes the UK-wide Help to Buy mortgage guarantee scheme, which is led by the Treasury and opens in January 2014. The Treasury has also worked with the Bank of England to implement the funding for lending scheme.

Mark Lazarowicz: Next year, home buyers in Scotland will have the opportunity to access the Scottish Government’s shared equity scheme, the Scottish Government’s mortgage guarantee scheme and the UK Government’s mortgage guarantee scheme. That may sound like a surfeit of riches, but it is leading to confusion, even now, about the best way to access these schemes. Why do the Government not take more action to ensure that there is a close relationship between what the Scottish Government are doing and what the UK Government are doing to make sure that the benefits of these schemes go not to second home buyers, buying houses of up to £600,000 a year, as the people who need them are first home buyers and people on modest incomes?

David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that we are working closely with the Scottish Government in relation to their equity scheme, which is equivalent to, but not the same as, the equity loan scheme available in England. The Home to Buy mortgage guarantee scheme will be available in Scotland, and we are working with the Scottish Government to ensure that there is a communications plan so that potential home buyers in Scotland fully understand how all the schemes work and how they relate to each other.

Ann McKechin: As my hon. Friend has just pointed out, the capital limit on the mortgage guarantee scheme of the UK Government is £600,000. This is hardly designed for those on low and modest incomes. Would the money not be better spent on providing social housing, which is badly needed across Scotland?

David Mundell: I would have thought that the hon. Lady would have welcomed the 10% increase in loans to first-time buyers in Scotland in the first quarter of 2012. The limit of the scheme reflects house prices across the United Kingdom, and I believe that it is fair and equitable.

Common Agricultural Policy

Neil Carmichael: What assessment he has made of the potential effect on Scotland of the outcome of the recent negotiations on reform of the common agricultural policy.

Michael Moore: Negotiations have been making real progress in the last few hours. We aim to deliver a strong outcome for farmers in Scotland, securing full regionalisation of the common agricultural policy to take account of the particular circumstances of Scottish producers.

Neil Carmichael: Notwithstanding the proven need for environmental schemes, does the Secretary of State agree that it is important to enable the farmers to make decisions about their own production mechanisms, so that they can improve production and provide more sustainable food for this country’s future?

Michael Moore: I agree with my hon. Friend. I spoke to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the last couple of hours after his all-night negotiations in Luxembourg. He remains committed to a scheme that will ensure that farmers get as productive as possible. He wants a scheme that is regionalised for Scotland, and he is delivering that. We have an arrangement that, I hope, will be fair to farmers, fair to consumers and fair to taxpayers.

Ian Davidson: Obviously the most important issue for my constituents is the future of the shipyards, which are threatened by separation, but they are also concerned about the fact that the common agricultural policy supplies public money to landlords who have surplus acres, while the Government fine tenants who are deemed to have surplus bedrooms. Is that fair?

Michael Moore: Let me first pay tribute to the Chairman of the Select Committee, and welcome his evident return to robust good health. I agree with him about the importance of the shipyards in the context of the debate about independence. As for the agricultural issue, I hope that the hon. Gentleman—who is a long-time campaigner for reform of the CAP—will see an outcome from what is still an ongoing process that is fair to his constituents as well as to farmers.

Anne McIntosh: I know that regionalisation is just as important to the delivery of the common agricultural policy as it is to the delivery of the common fisheries policy, but is my right hon. Friend aware of the possible cross-border impact of the way in which the reforms are implemented in Scotland on constituencies that are very close to Scotland?

Michael Moore: Obviously I defer to the hon. Lady’s expertise in this area, but, as one who represents what I believe is the longest section of the land border between Scotland and England, I am well aware of the issues that she has raised. What the Secretary of State has been negotiating in Luxembourg is an arrangement that introduces regionalisation for the whole United Kingdom, and allows us to design a common agricultural policy that is fit for local circumstances and fair to farmers throughout the UK.

Eilidh Whiteford: I am disappointed that the United Kingdom Government are set to negotiate a CAP deal that will leave Scotland with the lowest rural development budget not just in the UK, but anywhere in Europe. Had Scotland been negotiating on its own behalf, it would have benefited from the rule that no member state should receive less than €196 per hectare by 2020. Does the Secretary of State accept that being tied to the UK in these negotiations will cost Scottish farming £300 million a year for the next seven years?

Michael Moore: I am disappointed by the churlish tone adopted by the hon. Lady. I hoped that she might just have studied the tweets from the Scottish agriculture Minister, which have welcomed the major breakthroughs that we have achieved. We have done that as member of the United Kingdom, sitting at the top table and with the clout to deliver a regionalised CAP. It is now for Richard Lochhead and others to get on with designing a common agricultural policy that suits Scotland’s needs, and Mr Lochhead has the ability to do that.

Graeme Morrice: If agreement is reached this week on a common agricultural policy that will benefit farmers throughout Scotland, will it not constitute more evidence that Scotland speaks with a louder voice in EU negotiations as part of the United Kingdom?

Michael Moore: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and the model of the negotiations reinforces his point. It should be noted that the Scottish farming Minister, Richard Lochhead, who has been involved in discussions with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs throughout the process, was in Luxembourg overnight, and has seen the United Kingdom deliver for Scotland.

Employment Figures

Alun Cairns: What assessment he has made of the most recent figures on employment in Scotland.

Michael Moore: The most recent labour statistics show that between February and April 2013 employment in Scotland has increased by 47,000, while unemployment has fallen by 6,000 and the number of jobseeker’s allowance claimants by 900. The Government will continue to take the necessary steps to build a stronger economy in a fairer society.

Alun Cairns: Unemployment in Scotland has fallen for seven months in a row. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that could be put at risk should Scotland vote to become independent?

Michael Moore: I believe that Scotland as part of the United Kingdom has the most appropriate opportunities, and that not only its businesses but its consumers benefit from the great strength of the UK economy. They have more choice and more security as part of the United Kingdom, and when times get tough—as we saw at the time of the banking crisis—the United Kingdom is there to help out. That is a good deal, and we should stick with it.

John Robertson: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson), I represent a constituency in which the shipyards are the main employer. Scotstoun shipyard employs 2,000 people. What will happen to them if Scotland votes for independence next year?

Michael Moore: Once again, from the other side of the Clyde, the hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. That question is directed to the SNP routinely and it is one for which it has no answer. The arrangement we have with the shipyards and with construction at Rosyth and elsewhere is very good for Scotland, and we should long continue to be part of the UK.

Robert Smith: Will the Secretary of State confirm that many of the jobs are in the offshore oil and gas industry, and we must not forget that that is a very dangerous environment to operate in, especially as we mark the 25th anniversary of the Piper Alpha disaster, when 167 lives were lost? Will he study the outcome of the conference Piper 25 held last week, to see the redoubled efforts of the industry to make conditions as safe as possible for those who work for us offshore?

Michael Moore: My hon. Friend is right to draw the House’s attention to the tragic events of 25 years ago. The loss of 167 lives is something that the families, communities and area are still dealing with a quarter of a century later. We all remember that tragedy and remain committed to ensuring that we have the highest possible standards of health and safety in the North sea. As a Government, we remain committed to working with the sector, the trade unions and others to ensure that is the case, and of course we will study the recommendations from the conference to which my hon. Friend referred.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. It has suddenly gone quiet, which is very encouraging, but there was excessive noise in the Chamber. I know, however, that Members will want to be quiet for Margaret Curran.

Margaret Curran: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
	For those who are in employment, will the Secretary of State for Scotland tell the House whether average wages have gone up or gone down in Scotland since the last election?

Michael Moore: I would have hoped the hon. Lady would have welcomed the fact that more people are in employment as a result of the measures we are taking, and that we have created nearly 150,000 private sector jobs in Scotland. Of course there are still challenges facing the economy, but the hon. Lady will remember the legacy she left us, and she can see for herself the crisis in the eurozone. We remain committed to taking the steps that will continue our progress on the road to recovery.

Margaret Curran: Once again the Secretary of State does not let the facts get in the way of the same old answer. Average wages in Scotland have, in fact, gone down by £1,100 since he took office. That is the equivalent of 14 tanks of petrol, 15 weekly shops, or over nine months of gas and electricity bills. The Secretary of State has said in the past
	“the horrible truth is…everyone is going to have to make a contribution”.
	Is this what he had in mind?

Michael Moore: Despite the changes from the shadow Chancellor in recent days, the hon. Lady does not seem to have caught up with the new script—the recognition that the Labour party left the decks burning when it went out of office three years ago. She is not going to be credible until she faces up to that. What I have said to her is, “Yes, these are tough times, and they continue to be challenging,” but what we are doing, by raising the tax threshold so that 224,000 Scots are out of tax all together and 2 million Scots are enjoying a £600 per annum reduction in their income tax bill, is very important. We continue to work for fairness and for a successful economy.

Discretionary Housing Payments

Pete Wishart: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the allocation of additional funds to local authorities in Scotland for discretionary housing payments.

David Mundell: Earlier this month my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I met the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Lord Freud, the Minister for welfare reform, to discuss information received from local authorities in Scotland on this matter.

Pete Wishart: The Minister will of course know that some 80% of affected households in Scotland contain a disabled adult, yet they get only a paltry 6.5% of the
	total budget. Instead of concentrating on his pathetic scaremongering “project fear”, will he concentrate on the real fears of real Scots under this Tory-led Government?

David Mundell: What I am concentrating on is the real concerns of local authorities in Scotland. That is why the Secretary of State and I have met every single local authority in Scotland to discuss the specific concerns they have in relation to welfare reform, and we will meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities at the end of July to discuss the outcome of those discussions.

Economic Performance

Frank Roy: What recent assessment he has made of the performance of the economy in Scotland.

Michael Moore: Against a tough economic backdrop of the deficit we inherited from the previous Government and the crisis in the eurozone, we are taking the measures necessary to create a rebalanced economy with sustainable public finances.

Frank Roy: The Scottish economy needs people in work, but last year the Government supported the closure of the Remploy factor in Wishaw, and since then, nearly a year later, very few of those disabled workers have found a full-time job. How does that help the economy?

Michael Moore: I recognise the issue the hon. Gentleman raises on his constituents’ behalf, and others have done similar. I am very happy to meet him to discuss it further if he wishes. However, we want to ensure that we have an arrangement that helps those with disabilities, and others, to get into the workplace in a sustainable manner. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. The House must and will hear Mr Alan Reid.

Alan Reid: Superfast broadband is very important for the economy of rural areas. The Government’s target is 90% coverage by 2015, but in the highlands and islands, Highlands and Islands Enterprise’s target is only 75% coverage in each local authority area by December 2016. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss how we can get this target up to something comparable to the rest of the country?

Michael Moore: My hon. Friend is right to champion this cause, and it is very important indeed that we get superfast broadband as far across the UK as possible, and particularly in the highlands and islands. However, he might wish to wait for further announcements from the Government in the next day or so.

Angus Robertson: As part of the “project fear” tactics, there has been a ridiculous level of scaremongering in relation to inward investment, whereas in fact, Scottish Development International and the Scottish Government have helped to deliver a 15-year high in investment levels. Will the Secretary of State apologise for the scaremongering tactics of “project fear” that he is a part of?

Michael Moore: The hon. Gentleman needs to relax a bit and address this issue sensibly. He surely recognises that that record investment comes on the back of a United Kingdom economic framework that is supportive to businesses wherever they locate in the United Kingdom, and through which businesses can get access to the whole of the United Kingdom economy, without any false barriers created by him and his friends.

Angus Robertson: But the failing austerity policies of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition Government are not delivering the growth we require in Scotland or in the UK. However, will he take the opportunity to welcome the help and support he is getting as part of the “project fear” campaign by those who agree with the austerity course, who will agree with the Conservative spending caps that have been announced, and who now agree with bedroom tax: namely—

Mr Speaker: Order. The question is too long.

Michael Moore: That is another neat diversion by the hon. Gentleman, but he cannot avoid the fact that he and his colleagues have no answers on the central questions of Scotland’s economy: what currency it will have, how the banks and others will be regulated, how trade will work across the United Kingdom. On every single important question, there are no answers from the SNP. It will not be listened to until those answers come.

Iain Stewart: Later today, the House will debate the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this project will assist Scotland’s long-term economic growth?

Michael Moore: My hon. Friend is right: this is absolutely key to the whole of the UK’s economy, and I look forward to the benefits being enjoyed by all parts of Britain—north and south.

William Bain: This Government have delivered just one fifth of the promised growth since 2010. Is the Secretary of State also aware that the working-age employment rate in Scotland has fallen by 2% from five years ago, leaving a jobs gap for Scotland of more than 71,000? Does that not make the case for a jobs guarantee now to get Scotland’s young and long-term jobless people back into work, generate more tax revenues and help cut the deficit, which rose, not fell, last year under this incompetent Government?

Michael Moore: The hon. Gentleman should perhaps practise his questions a little more. Yet again, there is denial from him and his colleagues about the good progress we have been making on unemployment, and I hope he recognises that. It is absolutely essential that we take the measures to support people into work, which we are doing with the Work programme and the Youth Contract, and we will be making work pay with universal credit. He can shake his head, but he needs to get with the reality.

John Thurso: Does my right hon. Friend agree that connectivity through regional air hubs to international hubs is vital
	to the performance of the Scottish economy? What can the Government do to assist in maintaining those links, particularly at Inverness and to the highlands?

Michael Moore: My hon. Friend is a real champion of those vital air links to the north and to the far north, which he represents. I know that he has been making strong representations recently, and we would be happy to have further meetings with him to discuss these issues.

Fiona O'Donnell: The Office for Budget Responsibility states that real wages in Scotland will be lower in 2015 than they were when Labour left office. Why is the Secretary of State not standing up for hard-working Scots and protecting tax credits, and is instead giving a tax break to millionaires?

Michael Moore: There we go again. The hon. Lady, once again, chooses to ignore the absolute crisis that the Labour party left for the incoming Government three years ago. She forgets the measures we have taken to take low-paid Scots—224,000 of them—out of tax altogether. She forgets all those things. Without the firm measures we have taken in the past three years we would not be moving from rescue to recovery, as we are.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Gordon Henderson: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 26 June.

David Cameron: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and, in addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Gordon Henderson: Many people in Sittingbourne and Sheppey who have mortgages are benefiting from historically low interest rates. What reassurance can my right hon. Friend give my constituents that their mortgages will continue to be affordable under his Government?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We do enjoy record low interest rates, and that is good news for home owners. What we need to do is stick to the plans that we have set out and have a sensible fiscal policy, so that the Bank of England can keep interest rates low. Here is one piece of advice I will not be taking: on Saturday the leader of the Labour party said that he wanted to control borrowing but on Sunday the shadow Chancellor said borrowing would go up. Perhaps the leader of the Labour party will admit it when he gets to his feet: Labour would borrow more.

Edward Miliband: Last May, the Education Secretary said that “work will begin immediately” on 261 projects under the Priority School Building programme. Can the Prime Minister tell the House how many have begun?

David Cameron: What I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that infrastructure spending under this Government has been higher than it was under Labour, and we have about £14 billion reserved for capital spending on our schools. But we have had to clear up the appalling mess left by the Building Schools for the Future programme.

Edward Miliband: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman knows the answer. I will tell him the answer: 261 schools were promised, only one has started. Now perhaps he can explain why.

David Cameron: We have had to recover from the appalling mess of the Building Schools for the Future programme. That is the mess that we inherited—as well as a record deficit—but it is this Government, as the Chancellor will announce in a minute, who are providing half a million extra school places.

Edward Miliband: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that one. Let us try another one. In October 2011, he said he wanted to
	“bring forward every single infrastructure project that is in the pipeline”.
	So, out of 576 projects set out in that plan, how many have been completed?

David Cameron: Let me give the right hon. Gentleman the figures for infrastructure spending. Our annual infrastructure investment is £33 billion, which is £4 billion more every year than was ever achieved under Labour. Now let me give him the figures for road schemes. We are investing more in major road schemes in each of the first—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The answer from the Prime Minister must be heard and questions to him, from whichever side of the House, must be heard. It is very clear, very simple—it is called democracy.

David Cameron: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman asked the question: how many of the schemes have been completed? You cannot build a nuclear power station overnight. By the way, the Labour Government had 13 years and they did not build a single one. Let me give him the figures on rail. This Government are electrifying more than 300 miles of railway routes. Perhaps he can tell us how many were electrified under Labour? How many? Nine miles—that is the Labour record that this Government are recovering from.

Edward Miliband: I will tell the Prime Minister about our record in infrastructure: 100 new hospitals under a Labour Government, 3,700 schools rebuilt under a Labour Government, and 3,500 new children’s centres—all under a Labour Government. He has no answer, so let me tell him it again: seven out of 576 projects, five of which were started under the previous Labour Government. He said that it takes a long time to complete these projects—I thought he might say that—but 80% have not even been started, despite the promises of three years ago. More promises, no delivery.
	Let us see whether the Prime Minister can answer another one. Last year, the Government said that their NewBuy guarantee scheme would help 100,000 people buy a new home. How many people has it helped so far?

David Cameron: It has helped thousands of people and has been welcomed by the entire industry. The right hon. Gentleman talks about what was built under a Labour Government and we saw the results—a private finance initiative scheme on which we are still paying the debt and an 11% of GDP budget deficit that this Government will cut in half. That is the proof of what we are doing and we all know that the one question he has to answer is whether he will now admit that he wants to put borrowing up. Will he admit it?

Edward Miliband: Every time I come to Prime Minister’s questions, I ask the Prime Minister a question and he does not answer it—he just asks me one. The only fact that this House needs to know about borrowing is that contrary to the promise the Chancellor made in his autumn statement, it went up last year. That is the truth we find. Let me answer the question the Prime Minister did not know the answer to. He promised 100,000 new homes under NewBuy, but there have been just 2,000. At that rate, it will take until 2058 to meet the target he set.
	The British Chambers of Commerce says that the Government’s plan for infrastructure is
	“hot air, a complete fiction.”
	Even the Deputy Prime Minister has woken up to the problem. He said yesterday
	“the gap between…announcement and delivery is quite significant.”
	No kidding, Mr Speaker. Why should we believe the promises the Chancellor makes on infrastructure today when the Prime Minister’s own deputy says that they are failing to deliver?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman asks for the figures on housing, so let me give him those figures. We have delivered 84,000 new affordable homes. Housing supply is at the highest level since 2008, house building is increasing at a faster rate than for more than two years and we have put in place £11 billion for housing investment. Let me ask him again the question he will not answer—[Interruption.] I know that he does not want to answer the question, but that is why half the country think he is Bert from “The Muppets”, as they think he belongs in “Sesame Street”, not Downing street. Let me give him another go: will he admit that borrowing would go up under Labour?

Edward Miliband: Let me say to the Prime Minister that we will swap places any time. Here is the reality: the Prime Minister promised to balance the books, but borrowing was up last year; he said that we are all in it together, but living standards are falling; he promised to get Britain building, but the Government have not. All we need to know about this Chancellor’s spending review is that the British people are paying the price for their failure.

David Cameron: Let us remember what the Leader of the Opposition said at the time of the last spending review. He said unemployment would go up; it has gone down. He told us crime would go up; it has gone down. He told us volunteering would go down; it has gone up. He told us that poorer students would not go to university; the percentage has gone up. He told us that our immigration policy would not work; we have cut immigration by a third. That is what we have done—as ever, he is wrong about the economy, wrong about everything and never trusted by the British people.

Rehman Chishti: Today, the Government publish the spending round for 2015-16. Will the Prime Minister confirm that it rejects the representations to borrow less by borrowing more, as proposed by the Opposition?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. On Saturday, the leader of the Labour party told us there would be iron discipline on spending, but on Sunday, the shadow Chancellor, on the television, having been asked five times, admitted that yes, borrowing would go up. So there we have it: they want to borrow less by borrowing more; they want to spend less by spending more; they want to cap welfare by spending more on welfare. No wonder it is not just people at Wimbledon saying, “New balls, please.” [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. In congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his birthday, I call Mr David Winnick.

Hon. Members: Twenty-one today, twenty-one today, he’s got the key of the door, never been twenty-one before—

David Winnick: I certainly would not suggest a vote on it, Mr Speaker.
	Is the Prime Minister aware how shocking it is that the police apparently spent more time investigating the parents and friends of Stephen Lawrence than the racist murder itself, which took place in 1993? When the Home Secretary meets Mrs Lawrence, will she apologise for what occurred? Is it really right for the police to investigate themselves?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely serious point about a very serious situation. The Lawrence family have suffered appallingly: they lost their son; there was the failure to investigate properly, year after year; and now they hear these allegations that the police were trying to undermine them, rather than help them. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set out in the House on Monday the two inquiries—independent inquiries, already under way—and she met Mark Ellison QC again this morning to make sure that his inquiry will cover the allegations made overnight about the bugging by the police of a friend of Stephen Lawrence, but nothing is off the table. If more needs to be done and if further investigations or inquiries need to be held, they will be held. This is not an acceptable situation, and we must get to the bottom of it.

Jane Ellison: My Battersea constituency is attracting a large amount of inward investment from around the world for major infrastructure projects. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that one of the ways in which we are restoring the UK’s credibility overseas is by dealing with our debts and showing how we fund public spending properly?

David Cameron: Myhon. Friend makes an excellent point. The redevelopment of Battersea power station, which for all those years under Labour stood there completely empty and unused, is to start this year, because under this Government we take infrastructure
	seriously, we get investors to come into our country, and we get projects started—unlike the wasted years under Labour.

John Mann: Never mind Battersea, what about Bassetlaw? In its last six years, the Labour Government delivered £225 million-worth of major infrastructure projects. Can the Prime Minister confirm that in his three years there has been zero delivery of such projects and zero starts of such projects? When will he stop faffing around and get the new Elkesley flyover and the new Serlby Park school, which were guaranteed by the last Government, started in my constituency?

David Cameron: The last Government made a lot of guarantees and wrote a lot of cheques, but they could not deliver and they left us with an enormous budget deficit. Let me give the hon. Gentleman the figures: our spending on capital spending is higher than what Labour planned, and annual infrastructure investment is £33 billion, which is £4 billion more than Labour achieved, even in the boom years. That is what happened: they had an unaffordable boom and a painful bust, and it is this Government who are delivering the recovery.

Ben Gummer: The Prime Minister knows Ipswich well and he knows that it has some of the poorest wards in the country. He will know that two of those wards were promised schools by the previous Government. They did not deliver them in 13 years. I have just been to the topping out ceremony of one of them, delivered by this Government, and next year we will break ground on the other. When it comes to promises to the least advantaged people in our community, Labour are very good at promising. We deliver.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Opposition do not like hearing the evidence of the new schools being built by the Government in difficult times. Also, when we talked about the east of England, year after year, there were calls for improvements to the A11—never delivered, but delivered by this Government.

Gregory Campbell: The staging of the G8 proved that Northern Ireland is open to the world for business. Now we need the business of the world to come to Northern Ireland. Will the Prime Minister give us an outline of what he will do in conjunction with the American Administration and the Northern Ireland Executive to deliver a successful inward investment conference in October to deliver thousands of much-needed private sector jobs?

David Cameron: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I look forward to coming to Northern Ireland for that vital investment conference. I think that what we will be able to demonstrate is not only the success of the G8 and the great advertisement that that was for Northern Ireland but the coming together of the UK Government and the Northern Irish Assembly with plans both for economic development and for breaking down the barriers in Northern Ireland between different communities. That shared future agenda is important not just for the future of society in Northern Ireland but for the future of our economy too.

Robert Smith: I recently met Banchory Academy’s Amnesty International group, which has highlighted concerns about the risks to women in Afghanistan. What reassurance can the Prime Minister provide that the Government will continue their efforts to make sure that there is no return to the threats to women that we have seen in Afghanistan in the past?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point and we should continue to support the Afghan constitution, which gives important guarantees in that regard. I spoke yesterday to President Karzai, including on the issue of the Afghan constitution and how important it is. We are making a major investment by supporting the Afghan national security forces, and through our aid programme—over $100 million a year—we can help to secure the sort of advances in Afghanistan that we all want to see.

John Cryer: Further to the question that the Prime Minister failed to answer last week, can he confirm that he has never had a conversation with Lynton Crosby about alcohol pricing or cigarettes? The question is not “Has he been lobbied?”, but “Has he had that conversation?”

David Cameron: As I said last week, I have never been lobbied by Lynton Crosby about anything. The difference between me and, frankly, every Opposition Member is that I can put my hand on my heart and say that I have never been lobbied by trade union after trade union making donation after donation, fixing parliamentary selection after parliamentary selection. That is the real problem in British politics, and it is time that we cleaned it up.

Jake Berry: With Armed Forces day—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. These are important matters: Mr Berry must be heard.

Jake Berry: Thank you, Mr Speaker. With Armed Forces day in mind this weekend, will my right hon. Friend join me in supporting a campaign in Rossendale and Darwen, supported by Support Our Soldiers, the Rossendale Free Press and the Lancashire Telegraph, encouraging local residents to come and pack boxes to be sent to our troops serving in Afghanistan? We hope that by the end of this weekend we will have packed 500 to be sent to our troops.

David Cameron: I congratulate my hon. Friend, and everyone in Rossendale and Darwen who is taking part in this excellent initiative. I have seen these boxes not only being packed in Britain but unloaded in Afghanistan, and I can see the huge pleasure and support that they give our troops in Afghanistan. We should continue to use the money that has been raised in fines from irresponsible bankers following the LIBOR inquiry to invest in the armed forces covenant. Under this Government, we have made real progress in delivering that sort of help and support to armed forces, their families and their communities.

William Bain: In October 2010, the Prime Minister told the Conservative party conference:
	“In five years’ time, we will have balanced the books.”
	That promise is going to be broken, is it not, Prime Minister?

David Cameron: We have cut the deficit by a third, and we will cut it further by the next election. Frankly, coming to the House complaining about borrowing when you plan to put it up is a pretty odd political strategy. That is the question that the hon. Gentleman has to put to his Front Bench. Why, if borrowing is a problem, is it Labour policy to put it up?

Charlotte Leslie: In 2008 Labour buried three reports warning of a culture of fear in the NHS and warning about inspections. Now we find that its Care Quality Commission has buried concerns over baby deaths. Will the Prime Minister support a root-and-branch review of the sinister culture of cover-up in our NHS over the past decade?

David Cameron: First, I commend my hon. Friend for this campaign that she is fighting for openness, transparency and clarity in our NHS. She makes an important point, which is that there was a culture under the previous Government of not revealing problems in the NHS. The former Health Secretary is shaking his head, but this is what the former head of the CQC, Baroness Young, appointed by the previous Government, said—[Interruption.] I know the Opposition do not want to hear it, but they are going to have to hear it, because it is important that we understand the culture that went wrong under Labour. She said this:
	“There was huge government pressure, because the government hated the idea that—that a regulator would criticise it by dint of criticising one of the hospitals or one of the services that it was responsible for.”
	That is what Barbara Young said. And she said:
	“We were under more pressure. . . when”—
	the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham)—
	“became minister, from the politics.”
	There was a culture problem under Labour, and the sooner the Opposition admit it, the better.

Barry Gardiner: We now know from the latest Office for National Statistics figures that borrowing did rise last year, and the Prime Minister will recall that the Chancellor of the Exchequer two years ago said, “We have asked the British people for all that is needed, there is no need to ask for more.” Today, why is he asking for more?

David Cameron: We have to have a spending review to cover the year 2015-16, which was not covered by previous spending reviews. We have got the deficit down by a third. It is hard, painful and difficult work but we are clearing up the mess left when the hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the previous Government.

Ian Swales: Sixteen to 18-year-olds can receive free school meals in schools, academies, free schools and university technical colleges, but not in sixth-form colleges and further education colleges, such as those in my constituency. Will the Prime Minister act now to end this clear injustice left by Labour?

David Cameron: I am very happy to look at this issue. I know that school meals are very much in the news this week because it is a week when we should be promoting healthy eating in our schools. I am happy to look at the issue, but we have to think very carefully about how best to use the education budget to get money directed to schools for all our children.

Barry Sheerman: I think the Prime Minister will agree that both his generation and mine were lucky enough to come on to the labour market at a time of full employment and great opportunity. Has he seen the OECD figures this morning in a report that shows the gravity of youth unemployment in our country? May we please, at this late stage in this Government, have a determination to stop unemployment up to the age of 25, as is the case in the Netherlands? Why cannot we deliver that for young people in our country?

David Cameron: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that youth unemployment is a scourge. There is good news in the fact that unemployment has been coming down and youth unemployment has been coming down, but he is absolutely right that it should not be the case that we have youth unemployment of 55% in Spain, yet it is under 8% in Holland. We need to make sure here in the UK that we are performing alongside Holland, Germany and the countries with the lowest rates of youth unemployment. We do that by having a flexible labour market and by helping businesses to invest and locate here. As we stand today, employment is growing faster here than it is in any other G7 country, including Germany, so we are doing the right thing, but we need to focus more on young people.

Crispin Blunt: I have the Prime Minister’s helpful recent letter to me, underlining in his own hand that housing development does not trump the green belt. I gave his letter to Martin Pike, the planning inspector reviewing Reigate and Banstead’s core strategy, and I regret to report that he upheld the principle that green fields in the green belt could be identified for development against the wishes of local people. Will my right hon. Friend now direct the amendment of the national planning policy framework to better protect green fields in the green belt from unwanted development?

David Cameron: I remember underlining that part of the letter. The rules about the green belt have not changed. A local authority can change the green belt only by taking something out of the green belt and putting something back in, in consultation with local people. I know my hon. Friend is having that discussion with his local authority and I am quite convinced that, with the NPPF that we have in place, we can get the balance right between environmental protection on the one hand and the need for more housing on the other.

Graham Stringer: This afternoon I shall vote enthusiastically for the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill, but can the Prime Minister explain why he has instructed his officials and Ministers to oppose the extension of the trans-European network north of London, which will mean that if we stay in the European Union, High Speed 2 and other transport links to the north of England will not be eligible for funding?

David Cameron: Obviously we will be looking at all the ways we can increase the funding available for high-speed rail because, as the hon. Gentleman says, it is very important not only that we achieve high-speed rail between London and Birmingham, but that we build the next stages as well.

Daniel Kawczynski: The Prime Minister knows how hard the Shropshire MPs have worked to get a direct train service from London to Shrewsbury. Virgin wants to implement that direct service in December, but unfortunately Network Rail is trying to prevent that from happening. We are the only county town in England without a direct rail service to London. Will he use his good offices to ensure that that blockage is resolved?

David Cameron: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the Transport Secretary will be meeting him next week to discuss the issue. In terms of the answer I just gave on high-speed rail, I think that we have to recognise that there is a lot of congestion on our existing main lines and that high-speed rail will help free up services so that we can have more direct connections, particularly to important towns such as Shrewsbury.

Meg Munn: The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills proposes to abolish the protection for the name “Sheffield” that guarantees the quality of our manufactured goods. The Ministry of Defence proposes to move the headquarters of our Territorial Army regiment out of the city. What have this Government got against the businesses and people of Sheffield?

David Cameron: Sheffield is a fantastic city and a very important part of Britain’s industrial base, and I am proud of the fact that, through the regional growth fund and other schemes, we are investing in its future. On the reserves, we are actually putting more money into the reserves—an extra £1.5 billion—to ensure that we get them up to the level of strength needed for Future Force 2020. On the other issue, I am reliably informed that the hon. Lady should have some confidence.

Bob Russell: Military bands are important not only to Her Majesty’s armed forces, but to the civilian population. The previous Labour Government cut the number of Army bands by a quarter. In this Armed Forces week, will the Prime Minister give an assurance that there will be no further cuts to Army bands?

David Cameron: The assurance I can give my hon. Friend, as the Chancellor will say in a few minutes, is this: yes, of course we have had to make difficult efficiencies in the Ministry of Defence, but there will be no further reductions in the size of our Army, Navy or Air Force, and we will continue with an equipment programme that I think is second to none in terms of the capabilities we will be giving our brave armed service personnel.

Stephen Pound: Mr Speaker, you will recall that over a year ago—you probably know the exact date—the Prime Minister announced an internal inquiry, to be led by the lustrously named Lord Gold, into the cash-for-access
	scandal, in which major Conservative party donors were richly, if not royally, entertained at Downing street and Chequers. When does the Prime Minister plan to produce and publish the results of that inquiry?

David Cameron: I am very happy to set out for the hon. Gentleman all the things Lord Gold recommended and all the steps that we will be taking, but as we do so perhaps he could impose the issue of donations on his Front Benchers and ask them when they will pay back the taxes they managed to dodge from their donor?

Stephen Mosley: School dinners are vital to ensuring that children eat healthily and in helping to tackle childhood obesity. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the parliamentary launch of national school meals week, which will take place in the Jubilee Room this afternoon?

David Cameron: I certainly join my hon. Friend in that. I think it is a very important cause, because we have had several problems with school meals over the years. They are not attractive enough for young people who want to take them, and there are also problems with obesity, so getting this right, which has been happening over recent years, is extremely important. I speak as someone with two children who enjoy their school meals, and I want the school to go on winning the battle for school meals, rather than having to make the packed lunches.

Clive Efford: The revelation that the Metropolitan police may have withheld evidence from the Macpherson inquiry has rightly been met with public derision, but the Prime Minister’s answer earlier on really did not go far enough. The public are not satisfied by the police investigating the police, and nor will an inquiry held in secret, no matter how eminent the QC, satisfy public opinion. Will the Prime Minister now give an undertaking to hold a public inquiry with the power to summon people and hear evidence under oath?

David Cameron: As I said earlier, I rule absolutely nothing out. We have got to get to the bottom of this. But to be fair, this is not the Metropolitan police investigating the Metropolitan police. Two inquiries are under way. One is led by Mark Ellison QC, who played a very major role in prosecuting some of those responsible and who met the Home Secretary today, and the second is led by the chief constable of Derbyshire police force. We need to make sure that they have all the powers and everything that they need. But as I said very clearly, if we need to go further to get to the truth, we will.

Mark Spencer: As the spending round is published, will the Prime Minister assure the House that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will be given the resources to clamp down on tax avoidance, such as the £700,000 avoided by the Labour party?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I said that I would mention this at every Prime Minister’s questions; I have already managed to
	get it in once and it is a great pleasure to get it in again. They owe £700,000 of tax that could be going into schools or hospitals. It is about time they realised what hypocrites they are and paid up the money.

Ann McKechin: With more than 400,000 house building plots with planning permission remaining unbuilt on in this country, does the Prime Minister agree with me that we should now put pressure on companies to start building and creating jobs rather than simply waiting for their profits to increase?

David Cameron: I agree with the hon. Lady that we need to do more to encourage businesses to build on the plots they already have. That is why we have taken unprecedented steps, with schemes such as Help to Buy that are making mortgages available to young people. All those initiatives are actually making a difference, and housing starts are radically up compared with two years ago. But I do not rule out taking further steps as well.

John Baron: The Government deserve credit for having introduced the cancer drugs fund, which has helped more than 30,000 cancer patients since 2010, but can I share with the Prime Minister the fact that there is growing concern about the lack of clarity regarding its replacement at the beginning of the year? Will he look at this as a matter of urgency?

David Cameron: I am looking at it as a matter of urgency. I am very proud of the cancer drugs fund; as my hon. Friend says, it has saved many lives and made drugs available to more than 30,000 people. It has been expanded to include some treatments as well as drugs. I certainly want to see this a record that we build on and in no way put at risk.

Sheila Gilmore: Last week, the Prime Minister said that people on the Labour Benches had forgotten about the bedroom tax. I can assure him that my constituents certainly have not. In my city last week, only 23 one-bedroom homes were available for let. Of those, four had more than 200 applicants. When is the Prime Minister going to admit that this is not the best way of reducing the housing benefit bill?

David Cameron: The point I make to the hon. Lady is that we are removing the spare room subsidy because it is right for there to be fairness between people in privately rented accommodation and people in socially rented accommodation. But this, in a way, is the perfect prelude to the spending review that we are about to hear. Labour has told us that it is now going to be responsible about spending and that it is going to accept the cuts that have been made, yet we hear, week after week, Back Bencher after Back Bencher, Front Bencher after Front Bencher complaining about the difficult decisions that we have had to take and promising to reverse them. That is why Labour has absolutely no credibility whatever.

Spending Review

George Osborne: This coalition came into office with a commitment to address with firmness and resolve one of the biggest economic crises of the post-war era. The action we have taken, together with the British people, has brought the deficit down by a third, helped a record number of people into work, and taken our economy back from the brink of bankruptcy; and it allows us to say that while recovery from such a deep recession can never be straightforward, Britain is moving out of intensive care, and from rescue to recovery.
	Today we announce the latest action to secure the recovery. We act on behalf of every taxpayer and every future taxpayer who wants high-quality public services at a price our country can afford. We act on behalf of everyone who knows that Britain has got to live within its means. We have applied three principles to the spending round I will set out today: reform, to get more from every pound we spend; growth, to give Britain the education, enterprise and economic infrastructure it needs to win the global race; and fairness, making sure we are all in it together by ensuring those with the broadest shoulders bear the largest burden and making sure the unfairness of the something-for-nothing culture in our welfare system is changed.
	We have always understood that the greatest unfairness was loading debts on to our children that our generation did not have the courage to tackle ourselves. We have always believed, against much opposition, that it is possible to get better public services at lower cost—that you can cut bureaucracy and boost enterprise by taking burdens off the back of business. In the face of all the evidence, the opposition to these ideas has collapsed into incoherence. We have always believed that the deficit mattered—that we needed to take tough decisions to deal with our debts—and the opposition to that has collapsed into incoherence too. Today I announce the next stage of our economic plan to turn Britain around.
	Let me start with the overall picture on spending. In their last year in office, the previous Government were borrowing £1 in every £4 that they spent. It was a record for a British Government in peacetime and a calamitous risk with our economic stability. As the note we saw again this week from their outgoing Chief Secretary put it,
	“I’m afraid there is no money.”
	So we acted immediately. Three years ago, we set out plans to make savings and to reduce our borrowing. Instead of the £157 billion the last Government were borrowing, this year we are set to borrow £108 billion pounds: that is £49 billion less in borrowing. That is virtually the entire education budget.
	So we have made real progress, putting right what went so badly wrong. But while we have been acting, the challenges from abroad have grown: a eurozone in crisis, rising oil prices, and the damage from our own banking crisis worse than anyone feared. The truth is that we have to deal with the world as it is, not as we would wish it to be, so this country has to continue to make savings. I can report to the House that the biggest single saving we have made in government is the £6 billion a year less we are paying to service our debts than the
	previous Government budgeted for. Bear that number in mind when you hear the Opposition complaining about cuts.
	The deficit has come down by a third, yet at over 7% it remains far too high, so we must continue to take action—not just because it is wrong to go on adding debts to our children’s shoulders, but because we know from the global turbulence of the last few years that the economic risks are real and the recovery has to be sustained. If we abandoned our deficit plan, Britain would be back in intensive care. So the figures today show that until 2017-18, total managed expenditure—in other words, the total amount of Government spending—will continue to fall in real terms at the same average rate as it is falling today.
	The task before us today is to spell out what that means for 2015-16. Total managed expenditure will be £745 billion. To put that huge sum into context, consider this: if Government spending had been allowed to rise through this Parliament at the average rate of the last three decades, that total would have been £120 billion higher. This Government have taken—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The Chancellor must not have to shout to be heard. Members know that I will always accommodate the interests of Back Benchers on both sides in scrutinising these matters intensively, but the Chancellor and, in due course, the shadow Chancellor must be properly and fairly heard.

George Osborne: This Government have taken unprecedented steps to achieve that expenditure control. Now we need to find £11.5 billion of further savings. I want to pay a personal tribute to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for the huge effort that he has put into delivering them. Finding savings on that scale has not been easy. These are difficult decisions that will affect people in our country, but there never was an easy way to bring spending under control. Reform, growth and fairness are the principles. Let me take each in turn.
	I will start with reform and the obligation that we all have in this House to ensure that we get more for every pound of taxpayers’ money that we spend. With the help of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office, we have been combing through Whitehall, driving out costs, renegotiating contracts and reducing the size of government. Cutting money that the previous Government were spending on marketing and consultants, reforming Government IT and negotiating harder on behalf of the taxpayer have already saved almost £5 billion. In this spending round, we will find a further £5 billion of efficiency savings. That is nearly half of the total savings we need to achieve.
	We are reforming pay in the public sector. We are holding down pay awards, and public sector pay rises will be limited to an average of up to 1% for 2015-16. However, the biggest reform that we will make on pay is to automatic progression pay. That is the practice whereby many employees not only get a pay rise every year, but automatically move up a pay grade every single year, regardless of performance. Some public sector employees see annual pay rises of 7%. Progression pay can at best be described as antiquated; at worst, it is deeply unfair to other parts of the public sector that do not get it and to the private sector that has to pay for it. So we will end automatic progression pay in the civil service by 2015-16,
	and we are working to remove automatic pay rises simply for time served in our schools, NHS, prisons and police. The armed forces will be excluded from those reforms.
	Keeping pay awards down and ending automatic progression pay means that, for every pound we have to save in central administration, we can better limit job losses. I do not want to disguise from the House that there will be further reductions in the number of people working in the public sector. The Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that the total number of people working for the Government will fall by a further 144,000 by 2015-16. I know that for those who are affected that is difficult. That is the consequence of the country spending far beyond its means.
	When I presented the spending round three years ago, I said that about half a million posts in the public sector were forecast to have to go. That is indeed what has happened, and we are saving £2 billion a year, with a civil service now smaller than at any time since the war. I also said three years ago that I was confident that job creation in the private sector would more than make up for the losses. That prediction created more controversy than almost anything else at the time, including with the Opposition. The shadow Chancellor called it “a complete fantasy”. Instead, every job lost in the public sector has been offset by three new jobs in the private sector. In the last year, five new jobs have been created for every job cut in the public sector. The central argument of those who fought against our plan is completely demolished by the ingenuity, enterprise and ambition of Britain’s businesses. I pay tribute to the hard-working people of this country who proved their pessimism wrong.
	In this spending round, the Treasury will, as one would expect, lead by example. In 2015-16, our resource budget will be reduced by 10%. The Cabinet Office will also see its resource budget reduced by 10%. However, within that we will continue to fund support for social action, including the National Citizen Service. Ninety thousand places will be available for young adults in the citizen service next year, rising to 150,000 by 2016. It is a fantastic programme that teaches young people about their responsibilities as well as their rights, and we are expanding it.
	Local government will have to make further savings too. My right hon. Friend the Communities and Local Government Secretary has set an example to all his colleagues in reducing the size of his Department by 60% and abolishing 12 quangos. He is a model of lean government, and has agreed to a further 10% saving in his resource budget. But we are committing to more than £3 billion capital investment in affordable housing and we will extend the troubled families programme to reach 400,000 more vulnerable families who need extra support. We are proving that it is possible to save money and create more progressive government. That is the right priority.
	Here is another of the Government’s priorities: helping families with the cost of living. Because we know that times are tough, we have helped to keep mortgage rates low, increased the personal allowance, cut fuel duty and frozen council tax. That council tax freeze is due to come to an end next April. I do not want that to happen, so I can tell the House today that because of
	the savings we have made we can help families with their bills. We will fund councils to freeze council tax for the next two years. That is nearly £100 off the average council tax bill for families, and brings savings on these bills for families to £600 over this Parliament. That demonstrates our commitment to all those who want to work hard and get on.
	There is one more thing that we can do to help with the cost of living in one part of the country. For years, Members from the south-west of England have fought on behalf of their constituents who face exceptionally high water bills. Nothing was done until we came to office. Now we have cut those water bills by £50 per household every year until 2015. My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) and many others have campaigned to extend that rebate beyond 2015. I am happy to confirm today that we will do that. Taking money out of the cost of government and putting it in the pockets of families—that is what we mean by reform.
	Local government has already taken difficult decisions to reduce staff numbers, share services and make savings. I pay tribute to Sir Merrick Cockell for all he has done in showing how this can be achieved. We were told by the scaremongers that savings in local government would decimate local services. Instead, public satisfaction with local council services has gone up under this Government. That is because, with our reforms, communities have more control over their own destiny. That is because we have devolved power and responsibility to manage budgets locally. That is because we have let councils benefit from the tax receipts that come when the local economy grows. Today, we give more freedom, including greater flexibility over assets, and we will drive greater integration of local emergency services. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) for his fresh thinking in this area, which has helped to inform us.
	We are also embarking on major reforms to the way we spend money locally through the creation of the single local growth fund that Lord Heseltine proposed. This will be £2 billion per year, which is at least £10 billion over the next Parliament. Local enterprise partnerships can bid for that sum, and the details will be set out tomorrow. Our philosophy is simple: trust people to make their own decisions and they will usually make better decisions. But in return for those freedoms, we have to ask local government for the kind of sacrifices central Government are making. The local government resource budget will be reduced by 10% in 2015-16, but when all the changes affecting local government that I will set out are taken into account, including local income and other central Government funding, local government spending reduces by approximately 2%.
	I set out today the block grants to the devolved Administrations. Because we have prioritised health and schools in England, this feeds through the Barnett formula to require resource savings of about 2% in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Scottish resource budget will be set at £25.7 billion, and Scotland will benefit from new capital borrowing powers of almost £300 million. Being part of the UK means that Scotland will see its capital spending power increase by almost 13% in real terms in 2015-16. It is rightly for the
	Scottish Parliament to decide how best to use it. That is devolution within a United Kingdom delivering for Scotland.
	The Welsh resource budget will be £13.6 billion, and we will shortly publish our response to the Silk commission on further devolution of taxation and borrowing. When we do so, we will be able to say more about the impressive plans to improve the M4 in south Wales that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) and others have been campaigning for. The Northern Ireland resource budget will be £9.6 billion. We have agreed to provide an additional £31 million in 2015 to help the Police Service of Northern Ireland tackle the threat posed by terrorism. Those police officers do an incredibly brave job on our behalf, and we salute them. Separately, we will make 10% savings to the Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Offices.
	We believe that the cultural heritage of our nations is not just an economic asset, but has intrinsic value. When times are tough, they too must make a contribution to the savings this country requires. The Department for Culture Media and Sport will make savings of 7% in its resource budget. Elite sports will be protected and the funding of community sports, arts and museums will be reduced by just 5%, but because we recognise the value of our greatest museums, galleries and English Heritage, we are giving them much greater freedom from state control, which they have long called for, applying our reforming principles across the board and empowering those on the front line who know best—what the director of the British Museum called:
	“good news in a tough economic climate”.
	And while we are at it, we will make sure that the site of the battle of Waterloo is restored in time for the 200th anniversary to commemorate those who died there and to celebrate a great victory of coalition forces over a discredited former regime that impoverished millions.
	We still have the finest armed forces in the world, and we intend to keep it that way. The first line of national defence is sound public finances and a balanced defence budget, and my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary is helping to deliver both. He and his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), have filled the £38 billion black hole they inherited in the finances of the Ministry of Defence. We will continue to ensure we get maximum value for money from what will remain, which, at over 2% of our GDP, is one of the largest defence budgets in the world. The defence resource budget will be maintained in cash terms at £24 billion, while the equipment budget will be £14 billion and will grow by 1% in real terms thereafter. We will further reduce the civilian work force and their allowances; renegotiate more of the hopeless private finance initiative contracts signed in the last decade; and overhaul the way we buy equipment.
	My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has rightly been clear throughout, however, that he is not prepared to see a reduction in Britain’s military capabilities. This spending round not only protects those capabilities, but enhances them with the latest technologies. We will not cut the number of soldiers, sailors or airmen—we need them to defend our country—and we will give them the best kit to do that job: new aircraft carriers, submarines, stealth fighters, destroyers and state-of-the art armoured
	vehicles. We also make a major commitment to invest in cyber. It is the new frontier of defence and a priority for the Government.
	We will look after families who have lost their loved ones and those injured protecting us long after the wars they fought in are over. We previously committed to fund the military covenant for five years, and today I commit to funding the armed forces covenant permanently. We will do that with the money we have collected from the LIBOR fines, so those who represented the very worst values will support those who represent the very best of British values. Our veterans will not be forgotten.
	The intelligence services are on the front line too. Silently, and often heroically, these fellow citizens protect us and our way of life, and so we will protect them in return, with a 3.4% increase in their combined resource budget. The Foreign Office is the public face of our diplomacy, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague)is quite simply the best Foreign Secretary we have had in a generation. He, too, has demonstrated how we can make our taxpayer pound go further. While making savings in his budget, he has managed to expand our network of embassies in the emerging world and focus his diplomats on British commercial interests. There will be further savings in that budget of 8% in 2015, but he is still committing to strengthen our embassy network in high-growth markets, from Shanghai to Abuja.
	The Foreign Office projects our values abroad, and the Home Office protects our values here in Britain.

Chris Ruane: Is she the best Home Secretary for a generation?

George Osborne: Police reform is a model of what we can achieve across Government. Police forces are more accountable to the public, with modern working practices, the latest equipment and democratic oversight, and all that on a smaller—

Hon. Members: Is she the best for a generation?

George Osborne: Yes, she is the best Home Secretary for a generation—and a hell of a lot better than the ones who went before.
	What was the Opposition’s prediction? They said that crime would rise, and what has happened instead? Crime has fallen by more than 10%. Thanks to the hard work of police officers up and down this country, crime is at its lowest level for 30 years. What was their prediction about our borders? They said that because of cuts we would not be able to control immigration, and what has happened instead? Net immigration is down by more than one third.
	This Home Secretary is demonstrating that responsible budgets and reform can deliver better services for the public. In 2015, she will work with a resource budget of £9.9 billion, which is a saving of 6%, but the police budget will be cut by less than that. There will be further savings in the central Department, police forces will be encouraged to share services and some visa fees will go up, but protecting Britain from the terrorist threat remains a top priority, so I can confirm that the police counter-terrorism budget will not be cut at all.
	For the police to do their job, they need a criminal justice system that works a lot better. A case of common assault can take 240 days to pass through the courts and involves five separate sets of case papers generated on three different computer systems. In some prisons, the cost of keeping a prisoner is £40,000 a year, but in others, it is one third of that, while the cost of legal aid per head is double the European average. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor is reforming all these things, and by doing so will make savings of 10% in his departmental budget—and he will do that while for the first time offering probation services for those who have served short sentences to help to end the revolving door of crime and reoffending.
	That is an example of the reform we are bringing in across Government, and every step of the way, every penny saved, every programme reformed, every entitlement reduced, every difficult choice taken, has been opposed by vested interests and those who got Britain into this mess in the first place. We will not let up. I will not let that happen. The reform will continue.
	Government spending does not alone create sustainable growth; enterprise does, and the job of the state is to provide the schools, science, transport links and reliable energy that enable business to grow. Britain was once the place where the future was invented, from the railway to jet engine to the world wide web. We can be that country again, and today we set out how to get there. A huge amount of innovation and discovery still goes on, but successive Governments, of all colours, have put short-term pressures over long-term needs and refused to commit to capital spending plans that match the horizons of a modern economy. Today we change that. We commit now to £50 billion of capital investment in 2015. From roads to railways, bridges to broadband, science to schools, it will amount to more than £300 billion of capital spending guaranteed to the end of this decade.
	Today, we raise our national game. That means that Britain will spend on average more as a percentage of its national income on capital investment in this decade, despite the fact that money is tight, than in the previous decade, when Government spending was being wasted in industrial quantities.
	My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will tomorrow set out the next stage of our economic infrastructure plan, with specific plans for more than £100 billion of infrastructure projects. Here is what that will mean for the Departments. The Department for Transport will make a 9% saving in its day-to-day resource spending, bearing down on the running costs of Transport for London and on rail administration, but its capital budget will rise to £9.5 billion—the largest rise of any part of Government—and we will repeat that commitment for every year to 2020.
	We are already massively expanding investment on major road schemes, but we will do more. We are announcing the largest programme of investment in our roads for half a century. We have already expanded our investment in the railways, but we will do more. We are committing to the largest investment in our railways since the Victorian age, and with the legislation before this House today, we should give the green light to HS2,
	which will provide a huge boost to the north of England and a transformation of the economic geography of this country.
	Here in London, we are digging Crossrail, the largest urban infrastructure project in Europe, but we will do more. We are looking now at the case for Crossrail 2, linking London from north to south. We are going to give the Mayor almost £9 billion pounds of capital spending and additional financing power to the end of this decade.

Rosie Winterton: Is he the best ever? Better than the Prime Minister?

George Osborne: Well, he’s a lot better than Ken Livingstone, that’s for sure.
	Investing in our economic infrastructure also means investing in energy, so we will provide the certainty that investors are crying out for in western countries. This country is already spending more on renewables than ever before. Now we will provide future strike prices for low carbon. We are restarting our civil nuclear programme when other countries are unable to continue theirs, and now we are providing guarantees for new nuclear. Our exploitation of gas in the North sea is already second to none. Now we are making the tax and planning changes that will put Britain at the forefront of exploiting shale gas. We will provide our country with the energy of the future at a price that we can afford. Taken together, this should support over £100 billion of private sector investment in energy.
	The Department of Energy and Climate Change will do this while reducing its resource budget by 8%. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will see a 10% reduction, but we will set out plans for a major commitment to new flood defences for the rest of this decade. Again, we are prioritising long-term capital through day-to-day cost savings, which is exactly the tough choice that Britain should be making.
	It is not enough to have roads, power stations and flood defences. That is just the physical infrastructure we need to compete in the 21st century. We need the intellectual capital, too. This country needs to invent, pioneer and export around the world. That means backing the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which helps us to do that. And it means taking tough decisions about what we should support. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has agreed to a reduction of 6% in the cost of the Department. That means that we are making savings to student maintenance, keeping grants but not increasing them, and the cost of the central Department will also be cut further. That means that, within the reduced budget, we can put more money into apprenticeships and continue with the dramatic increase in support that we have provided to exporters through UK Trade & Investment.
	We are not going to shift medical training and research out of that Department, because they are working well where they are. And in that Department too, we can shift from day-to-day spending to a huge 9% increase in capital investment. That includes a huge investment in science. Scientific discovery is first and foremost an expression of the relentless human search to know more about our world, but it is also an enormous strength for a modern economy. From synthetic biology to graphene,
	Britain is very good at it and we are going to keep it that way. Today, I am committing to maintaining the resource budget for science at £4.6 billion, to increasing the capital budget for science in real terms to £1.1 billion, and to maintaining that real increase to the end of this decade. Investment in science is an investment in our future. So yes, from the next generation of jet engines to cutting-edge supercomputers, we say: keep inventing, keep delivering; this country will back you all the way.
	We have infrastructure and we have science, but we still need an educated work force to make it happen. Because of our ongoing reforms to our universities, they are now better funded than before—[Hon. Members: “What?”] Well, Mr Speaker, people will remember that the reforms to higher education were bitterly contested in the House. We remember the scaremongering about fees, and the claims that they would destroy social mobility and put off students from poorer communities applying. And what has happened since? We now have the highest ever proportion of students from the most deprived neighbourhoods applying to universities. We should all welcome that.
	There is no greater long-term investment a country can make than in the education and skills of its children. Because of the tough decisions that we have taken elsewhere, we have been able to invest in education and accelerate school reform. When we took office, our country’s education system was falling behind other parts of the world. Now, thanks to the brilliant programme of reform by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and the Minister for Schools, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), we are once again leading the way.
	We have applied our reform principles in education too, freeing schools and teachers to concentrate on teaching and turning the majority of secondary schools into academies. In this spending round, that momentum of reform will grow. The Department for Education’s overall budget will increase to £53 billion and schools spending will be protected in real terms, fulfilling the pledge we made at the beginning of this Parliament, for all of this Parliament. We will transfer power and money from town halls and central bureaucracy to schools, so that more of the money for education is spent on education. So, while grants to councils and spending on central agencies are reduced, the cash going to schools will go up.
	I can announce today that schools spending will be allocated in a fairer way than ever before. School funding across the country is not equally distributed; it is distributed on a historical basis with no logical reason. The result is that some schools get much more than others in the same circumstances. That is unfair and we are going to put it right. Many MPs on both sides of the House have campaigned for that. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) has been a particular champion in this Parliament. Now, the lowest-funded local authorities in this country will at last receive an increase in their per-pupil funding as we introduce a national funding formula to ensure that no child in any part of our country is discriminated against. We will consult on all the details so that we get this historic reform right. The pupil premium that we have introduced also ensures that we are fair to children from low income backgrounds. It will be protected in real terms, so that every poor child will have more cash spent on their future than ever
	before. The capital budget will be set at £4.6 billion in 2015-16, with over £21 billion of investment over the next Parliament.
	We will also tackle the backlog of maintenance in existing schools and we will invest in new school places. We will fund 20 new studio schools as well as 20 new university technical colleges, as they are outstanding new vocational institutions. Free schools are giving parents the opportunity to aspire to a better education for their children. The Opposition have said that they want no more of them, but we will not allow such an attack on aspiration to happen. Instead, we must accelerate the programme and bring more hope to more children. That is why I can announce that we will fund an unprecedented increase in the number of free schools. We will provide for 180 great new free schools in 2015-16.
	The schools budget will be protected, there will be fairer funding across the nation, the pupil premium will be extended to more students than ever before and there will be a transformation in the free school programme. We will not make our children pay for the mistakes of the past. We will give them every chance for the future, because that is the single best investment we can make.
	Our education settlement is also consistent with the third and final principle of this spending round—fairness. It is not possible to reduce a deficit of this size without asking all sections of the population to play their part, but those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden. The Treasury’s distributional analysis shows that the top fifth of the population lose the most after this spending round, and the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies is unequivocal that the richest 10% have paid the most. In every year of this Parliament, the rich will pay a greater proportion of income tax revenues than they did in any one of 13 years under the last Labour Government.
	When it comes to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, despite the fact that this Department will see a 5% reduction in its resource budget, we are committed to extra resources to tackle tax evasion. The result is that we expect to raise over £1 billion more in tax revenues from those who try and avoid paying their fair share.
	Fairness also means refusing to balance the budget on the backs of the world’s poorest. I know that not everyone believes we should fulfil our commitment to spend 0.7% of our national income on development—but I do. I am proud to support a Government who are the first in our history to meet our pledge and meet it not only this year, but next year and the year after that. Of course, overseas development is about more than just the Department for International Development budget, and we comply with internationally policed rules. The DFID budget is, however, the lion’s share, and it will be set at £11.1 billion in 2015-16. Even in these tough times, the decisions we make mean we keep to our commitments.
	That includes our commitment to the national health service—an institution that is the very embodiment of fairness in our society. The NHS is much more than the Government’s priority; it is the people’s priority. When we came to office, the health budget was £96 billion; in 2015-16, it will be £110 billion—and capital spending will rise to £4.7 billion. New medical treatments and an ageing population mean that the demand for NHS services is rising, so we have not spared in also demanding reform and value for money in this service. This will not
	insulate the health service from tough choices; there are already 7,000 fewer managers, and the NHS will continue to make efficiency savings. Those savings will, however, enable new investment in mental health and funding for new treatments for cancers such as prostate and breast cancer. Let me respond directly to the breast cancer research campaign in which so many have taken part. We will continue to back the charity research support fund and look into making it easier for these organisations to benefit from gift aid.
	Many older people do not just use the NHS; they also use the social care system. If we are honest, they often fall between the cracks of the two systems, being pushed from pillar to post, not getting the care they should. None of us here would want that for our parents or grandparents, and in a compassionate society, no one should endure it. It is a failure that also costs us billions of pounds: Britain can do better.
	We said in the 2010 spending review that the NHS would make available around £1 billion a year to support the health needs of people in social care. It worked, and saved hundreds of millions in the process. Last year, these improvements meant almost 50,000 fewer bed days were lost to the NHS. So today, I can announce that I will bring together a significant chunk of the health and social care budgets. I want to make sure that everyone gets a properly joined-up service where they will not have to worry about whether a service is coming from the NHS or the local council.
	Let us stop the tragedy of people being dropped in A and E on a Friday night to spend the weekend in hospital because we cannot look after them properly in social care. By 2015-16, over £3 billion will be spent on services that are commissioned jointly and seamlessly by the local NHS and local councils working together. It is a huge and historic commitment of resources to social care, tied to real reform on the ground, to help end the scandal of older people trapped in hospitals because they cannot get a social care bed. This will help relieve pressures on A and E, help local government to deliver on its obligations and will save the NHS at least £1 billion. This is integrated health and social care—no longer a vague aspiration, but a concrete reality transforming the way we look after people who need our care most.
	So these are the three principles that guide the spending round: reform, growth and fairness. Nowhere could these principles be more clearly applied than in our approach to welfare. Two groups of people need to be satisfied with our welfare system: those who need it who are old, vulnerable, disabled or have lost their job, whom we as a compassionate society want to support. Then there is a second group: the people who pay for this welfare system who go out to work, pay their taxes and expect it to be fair on them, too.
	So we have taken huge steps to reform welfare: changing working age benefits with universal credit so that work always pays; removing child benefit from the better off; capping benefits so that no family out of work gets more than the average family gets in work. And we have been making sure that benefit payments do not rise faster than wages. The steps we have taken will save £18 billion a year—and every single one of them was opposed by the welfare party on the Opposition Benches.
	Now we propose to do three further welfare reforms. First, as I said in the Budget, we are going to introduce a new welfare cap to control the overall costs of the benefits bill. We have already capped the benefits of individuals, and now we cap the system as a whole. Under the system we inherited, welfare spending was put into a category called annually managed expenditure, but the problem was that it was not managed at all. The cost of welfare went up by a staggering 50%—even before the crash. Our welfare cap will stop that happening again. The cap will be set each year at the Budget for four years. It will apply from April 2015 and will reflect forecast inflation, but it will be set in cash terms. In future, when a Government look to breach the cap because they are failing to control welfare, the Office for Budget Responsibility will issue a public warning. The Government will then be forced to take action to cut welfare costs or publicly to breach the cap and explain it to Parliament.
	We will exclude a small number of the most cyclical benefits that directly rise and fall with the unemployment rate to preserve the automatic stabilisers: housing benefit, tax credits, disability benefits and pensioner benefits will all be included—but the state pension will not. I have had representations that we should include the basic state pension in the welfare cap. That would mean that a future Government could offset a rise in working age benefits by cutting the pensions of older people. That penalises those who have worked hard all their lives. Cutting pensions to pay for working age benefits is a choice this Government are certainly not prepared to make. It is unfair; we will not do it and we reject those representations completely.
	The new welfare cap is proof that Britain is serious about living within its means: controlling spending, protecting the taxpayer and being fundamentally fair. Today we are introducing a limit on the nation’s credit card. The principles enshrined in the cap apply to our second reform today. We will act to ensure that we stop the cost of paying the winter fuel payments made to those who live abroad from rising in a way that no one ever intended. EU law now says that people living in the European economic area can claim winter fuel payments from us, even if they did not get them before they left the UK. Paying out even more money to people from all nationalities who might have worked in this country years ago, but no longer live here is not a fair use of the nation’s cash. So from the autumn of 2015, we will link the winter fuel payment to a temperature test; people in hot countries will no longer get it. It is, after all, a payment for winter fuel.
	The third welfare reform I announce today is about making sure we do everything to help people get into work. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has changed the national debate about welfare, and has comprehensively won the argument. He has committed himself to finding a further 9.5% of savings in his Department’s running costs. That will require a difficult drive for efficiency, and a hard-headed assessment of underperforming programmes.
	However, welfare reform is about much more than saving money, vital though that is. It is about reducing dependency and changing people’s lives for the better. I am determined to go further to reduce worklessness with all its social consequences. Where is the fairness in condemning people to a life on benefits because the system will not help them to get back into work?
	Today we are introducing Upfront Work Search. We are going to make sure that people turn up with a CV, register for online job search, and start looking for work. Only then will they receive their benefits. Thanks to this Government, lone parents who are out of work can now receive free child care for all their three and four-year-olds, so it is reasonable to ask that they start regularly attending jobcentres and preparing to return to work.
	We are announcing further changes today. Half all jobseekers need more help with looking for work, so we will require them to go to the jobcentre every week rather than once a fortnight. We will give people more time with jobcentre advisers, and proper progress reviews every three months. We will also introduce a new seven-day wait before people can claim their benefits. Those first few days should be spent looking for work, not looking to sign on. We are doing those things because we know that they help people to stay off benefits, and help those who are on benefits to get back into work faster.
	Here is a further change. From now on, if claimants do not speak English, they will have to attend language courses until they do. That is a reasonable requirement in this country. It will help people to find work, but if they are not prepared to learn English, their benefits will be cut.
	As a whole, this new contract with people on benefits will save more than £350 million a year, and all that money will enable us to afford extra support to help people to get into work. Help to work, incentives to work, and an expectation that people should do everything that they can to find work: that is fair to people who are out of work, and it is fair to those in work who pay for them. Together, these reforms bring the total additional welfare savings in 2015 up to £4 billion.
	Step by step, this reforming Government are making sure that Britain lives within its means. The decisions that we make today are not easy, and these are difficult times; but with this statement, we make more progress towards an economy that prospers, a state that we can afford, a deficit coming down, and a Britain on the rise. I commend our economic plan to the country.

Edward Balls: The Chancellor spoke for more than 50 minutes, but not once did he mention the real reason for today’s spending review: his comprehensive failure on living standards, growth and the deficit. We have seen prices rising faster than wages, families worse off, long-term unemployment up, welfare spending soaring, a flatlining economy, and the slowest recovery for more than 100 years. As a result of that failure, for all the Budget boasts, borrowing last year was not down but up. The Chancellor has not balanced the books, as he promised to do, and in 2015 we will see a deficit of £96 billion. There has been more borrowing to pay for the Chancellor’s economic failure, which is why he has been forced to come to the House today to make more cuts in our public services.
	Does the Chancellor recall what he said to the House two years ago? He said:
	“we have already asked the British people for what is needed, and…we do not need to ask for more.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 951.]
	We do not need to ask for more! Is not the Chancellor’s economic failure the reason why he is back here today asking for more? More cuts in the police, more cuts in our defence budgets, more cuts in our local services: this out-of-touch Chancellor has failed on living standards, growth and the deficit, and families and businesses are paying the price for his failure.
	Of course, it was not supposed to turn out like this. Does the Chancellor remember what he told the House three years ago, in his first Budget and spending review? He said that the economy would grow by 6%, but it has grown by just 1%. He pledged to get the banks lending, but bank lending is down month on month on month. He made the number one test of his economic credibility keeping the triple A credit rating, but on his watch we have been downgraded not once but twice. He promised that living standards would rise, but they are falling year on year on year. He said “We’re all in this together”, but then he gave a huge tax cut to millionaires. He promised to balance the books, and that promise is in tatters.
	We see failed tests and broken promises. The Chancellor’s friends call him George, the US President calls him Jeffrey, but to everyone else he is just Bungle—and I see that even Zippy on the Front Bench cannot stop smiling. Calm down, Zippy, calm down.
	Did we get an admission from the Chancellor that his plan has not worked, and that Britain needs to change course? Did we get the plan B for growth and jobs that we and the International Monetary Fund have called for? It does not have to be this way. Surely, rather than planning for cuts in 2015, two years ahead, the Chancellor should be taking bold action now to boost growth this year and next. Investment would get our economy growing and bring in the additional tax revenues that would mean that our police, armed forces and public services would not face such deep cuts in 2015. Why did the Chancellor not listen to the IMF, and provide £10 billion in infrastructure investment this year? Given that house building is at its lowest level since the 1920s, why is he not building 400,000 more affordable homes this year and next? If the Chancellor continues with his failing economic plan, it will be for the next Labour Government to turn the economy around and make the tough decisions that will get the deficit down in a fair way.
	I have to say to the Chancellor that there is no point in boasting about infrastructure investment in five or seven years’ time; we need action now. I must also say to him that he ought to brief the Prime Minister better for Prime Minister’s questions, because three years after the infrastructure plan was launched, just seven of the 576 projects that were announced have been completed. More than 80% have not even been started, just one school has been provided, and in the first three months of this year, infrastructure investment fell by 50%. On infrastructure, we need bold action now, not just more empty promises for the future.
	As for the idea that this spending review will strengthen our economy for the long term, let me ask the Chancellor some questions. Where is the proper British investment bank that business wants? Where is the 2030 decarbonisation target that the energy companies say that they need if they are to be able to invest for the future? Where is the backstop power to break up the banks if there is no reform, which the Parliamentary
	Commission on Banking Standards called for? And whatever happened to the Heseltine plan’s much-heralded £49 billion single pot growth fund for the regions? A mere £2 billion is pathetic.
	Is this not the truth? Instead of action to boost growth and long-term investment, all we got today was more of the same from a failing Chancellor, and we got more of the same on social security and welfare spending too.
	We have had plenty of tough talk and divisive rhetoric from the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, but on their watch the benefits bill is soaring. Social security spending is up £21 billion compared with their plans. We have called for a cap on social security, and we fully support the triple lock on the pension—something not even mentioned in the Chancellor’s statement—but the fact is that in 2010 the Chancellor tried to set a cap on social security spending and he has overspent his cap by £21 billion.
	If the Chancellor really wants to get social security bills down, why not get young people and the unemployed back to work with a compulsory jobs guarantee paid for by a tax on bank bonuses? Why not get our housing benefit bill down by tackling high rents and the shortage of affordable homes? Why not stop paying the winter fuel allowance to the richest 5% of pensioners? And why not make work pay with a 10p tax band paid for by a mansion tax, instead of huge tax cuts for millionaires?
	The Chancellor is making the wrong choices on growth and social security spending, and he is making the wrong choices on departmental spending as well. Let me ask him: when thousands of front-line police officers are being cut, why is he spending more on police commissioners than the old police authorities? Why is he wasting £3 billion on a reckless reorganisation of the NHS that the public do not support? Why is he funding new free schools in areas with enough school places, while parents in other areas cannot get their children into a local school?
	We will study the Chancellor’s departmental spending plans for 2015-16. There is a lot of detail that he did not provide for the House. We look forward to seeing whether he will confirm the continuation of free national museum entry—maybe he can tell us in his response—but I have to say to the Chancellor that the country needs to know the detail, so let me ask him: will this spending review mean fewer police officers in 2015-16, on top of the 15,000 we will lose in this Parliament? Will it mean fewer nurses in 2015, on top of the 4,000 we have lost so far? Will it mean fewer Sure Start children’s centres, on top of the 500 that have already closed? And will he continue to impose deeper cuts on local authorities in areas with the greatest need, when already in this Parliament the 10 most deprived local authorities are losing six times the spending per head of the 10 least deprived areas? People up and down the country want to know the answers to these questions, and they should be in no doubt that the scale of the extra cuts the Chancellor has announced today to our police, defence and local services are the direct result of his abject failure to get the economy to grow.
	The Chancellor is failing on living standards; they are falling. He is failing on growth; it is flatlining. He is failing on the deficit, and all we got was more of the
	same: no plan to turn our economy around, no hope for the future, and Britain’s families and our public services are paying the price for this Chancellor’s failure.

George Osborne: One thing is for certain after that performance: the right hon. Gentleman is the worst shadow Chancellor for a generation, and we want to keep him right where he is. What is amazing is that he spoke for 11 minutes and never said Labour wants to borrow more. Did anyone hear that in his comments? That is his argument: he wants to borrow more. Why does he not have the courage to get up and make his economic argument at the Dispatch Box? He finds himself in a situation where the entire argument he has been advancing for the last three years has completely collapsed. Where was the reference to the temporary VAT cut? Abandoned. Where was the reference to the five-point plan? Abandoned. He complains about all the cuts; here is a very simple question. We shall spend £745 billion in 2015; what will he spend? Does he match those plans or not? Hands up on the Labour Benches from those who want to match our spending plans. On Saturday, the Labour leader—

Mr Speaker: Order. May I just say—[Interruption.] No help from the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) is required; he would not have the foggiest idea where to start. Let me just say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is a way in which these matters are handled, and it is not by the Minister responding to questions posing a series of questions. That is in breach of parliamentary protocol, it is not proper, and it must stop right away—and others, including at the very highest level, ought to take note of that for future weeks. Let’s be clear about it.

George Osborne: I will leave it to the country to ask these questions. I make this point. In this spending plan I have set out total managed expenditure of £745 billion, and it is up to all Members of this House to decide whether they support that. We do not know the position of the Opposition, because on Saturday the Labour leader said there would be no more borrowing, but on Sunday the shadow Chancellor said “yes, of course” there would be, so we will see what the position of the Opposition is on this.
	The shadow Chancellor mentions what has been said in this House before. Well, let us be clear about what he said in this House before, and how we have responded to it in this spending plan. On 6 June 2011 he said there would be a return to mass unemployment. We have set out welfare plans that help people get back into work. Does he support those or not? That is the question the public will ask of him. He said in October 2010 that we were taking a huge risk with crime. Crime is down 10% or more. He said in July that year that the university reforms would shut out those from disadvantaged backgrounds from university, but actually a record proportion of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds applied to go to university. He said, in his own words, that the cuts to the border agency would mean we would be unable to enforce our immigration policy. That was wrong, too. Every previous prediction he has made, including the prediction that there would be no more boom and bust, has proved to be completely wrong, so why would anyone believe a word he has got to say about this at all?
	The simple point is this: we have set out our plans—we have set out our economic strategy, we have set out our spending plans—and those who disagree with them should advance an alternative or retreat from the battlefield, because the shadow Chancellor finds himself in no man’s land. He has abandoned his economic argument but stuck with a disastrous economic policy of borrowing more, and in the end, if we want to know why, we only need to hear what he said this month:
	“Do I think the last Labour government was profligate, spent too much, had too much national debt? No, I don’t think there’s any evidence for that.”
	All people want Labour to say is, “We’re sorry, we got it wrong, we borrowed too much and we spent too much, and we won’t do it again.”
	To answer the specific question that the shadow Chancellor asked me, yes we will have free museum charges—so that people can go to our museums and see the antiquated economic policy advanced by the Opposition, which brought this country to its knees and gave us the worst economic crisis for a generation, and they can learn how this Government cleared up that mess.
	These reductions and the control of public expenditure are absolutely essential. That will bolster the credibility of fiscal policy in the markets and it creates room for the private sector to lead the recovery and create the jobs we need, particularly in small businesses in our constituencies, who are desperately trying to find the funding to expand.

Andrew Tyrie: Behind all the noise, most Members actually do agree that both the deficit and public spending are much too high and have to come down, and we should be under no illusions at all among ourselves just how tough and remorseless a task that is. Those reductions and that control of public expenditure are absolutely essential. They will bolster the credibility of fiscal policy in the markets and create room for the private sector to lead the recovery and create the jobs we need, particularly in small businesses in our constituencies, some of which are desperately trying to find the funding to expand. Sustaining public expenditure control over this period, and now being able to set out plans for the years ahead, is a great achievement by the Chancellor, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the coalition.
	I want to draw attention to and ask a question about a particular proposal. The cap on nominal welfare spending will need careful scrutiny; it may well be an essential measure to give teeth to controlling annually managed expenditure, which frankly has not been well managed and is threatening to get out of control. Will the Chancellor publish today all the necessary detail to enable Parliament and the Treasury Committee to examine this extremely important proposal?

George Osborne: I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the difficult steps we needed to take. Our trying to set out these spending plans further in advance, so that Departments have time to make the necessary adjustments, is a good innovation in fiscal policy. The certainty we now have for 2015 will, I think, mean better public policy.
	We have set out some of the details of the welfare cap in my speech today, but in the document we publish, we have set its parameters, how it will be set in cash terms,
	the period over which it will be set and when it will be set—at the Budget. However, it is absolutely my intention to listen to the Treasury Committee, which I hope will take an interest in this issue, and to examine best practice and make sure we get the final details absolutely right. If we want to change the Office for Budget Responsibility charter, we will have to legislate, but that is something we need to examine. We absolutely should work on the details, but the principles and the principal components of the cap have been established.

Alistair Darling: I was interested in the Chancellor’s claim to have rescued the economy. I think I am right in saying that in 2010, the economy was actually growing, whereas unfortunately, in 2011 it stopped growing. That is why he is borrowing more than he intended and why his target to reduce national debt has been moved well into the next Parliament.
	On the new growth items the Chancellor announced today, particularly those relating to transport, how much of that is public money and how much is expected to be raised from the private sector? Can he also give us some idea of how much additional growth he expects to see in the economy as a result of the measures he has announced, most of which, I think I am right in saying, will not take effect until the next Parliament? Given the delay in delivery of these projects—a problem that has dogged successive Governments—it may be some considerable time before we actually see their economic benefit.

George Osborne: The right hon. Gentleman and I have, I hope, a cordial relationship, but I will just disagree on one point. The idea that he handed me a golden economic legacy and an easy set of books, and that somehow it was all fantastically booming after a 6% contraction in the economy, is something that will turn out, if I check his memoirs, not to have been the case.
	To answer the right hon. Gentleman’s specific points, the transport money we set out is public investment; of course, there are opportunities to lever in additional private investment. He was gracious enough to acknowledge that all Governments have had the challenge of how to deliver infrastructure projects, given the planning system we have and so forth. We are reforming planning and will set out this week changes to infrastructure delivery in Whitehall to try to accelerate the delivery of projects—something that has bedevilled the British Government for decades, and we shall do our best to put it right.

John Redwood: I fully support the Chancellor’s wish to reduce the growth rate of public spending in cash terms; it is a very necessary thing to do to get the deficit under control as economic growth picks up, as I think it is now doing. On the welfare reforms, will he look at the idea that any non-British citizen coming to our country should have to work for a period and pay taxes before being eligible for any welfare benefits?

George Osborne: I am certainly prepared to look at any ideas that my right hon. Friend puts forward on welfare. Of course, one of our challenges—one of the debates in this country and in other European countries—concerns the eligibility for benefits of people who move here. In that regard, we are hemmed in by European law, but there may be opportunities within it to make some adjustments, and we are looking closely at those.

Margaret Hodge: The Chancellor said that one of the objectives of his statement today was to stimulate growth, and he announced £50 billion of investment in 2015-16. In 2009-10, this country spent £48.4 billion in cash terms. Will he now accept that that 2015-16 figure represents a real-terms cut in investment?

George Osborne: I inherited from the last Chancellor a plan greatly to reduce capital spending—to cut it by 50%. In the 2010 review, we increased it from the plans we inherited. We increased it in the years since, and now we are maintaining it in the years going forward and setting it out for the rest of the decade. So the big reduction in capital spending that the right hon. Lady refers to is one I guess she must have supported, because she was a Minister of that Government.

Stephen Williams: We all know that if we try to live a £40,000 lifestyle on a £30,000 salary, it soon leads to misery unless corrective action is taken. That was the legacy, at a national level, that we were left by the last Government. Despite that tough backdrop, have not this coalition Government secured funding for the national health service and for schools, including more money for children on free school meals, and today announced a massive boost to infrastructure spending and scientific research in order to smooth the way to sustainable economic growth?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is right and in the end, this is about choices. I say to all the Labour Members getting ready to ask questions that, given that the Labour leader says that he will take these resource plans as a starting point, if they complain about any cut, they have to suggest what else they would cut. We have made choices as a Government. We have committed to protecting the NHS, committed to schools, committed to the pupil premium—we have done these things because we want a fairer society, and we also believe that investing in infrastructure and growth enhances our country’s economic performance. Those are our choices: if people have an alternative plan, we have not heard of it.

Peter Hain: Why does the Chancellor think he is so right, and Keynes wrong?

George Osborne: We have drawn on the best economic evidence that the recovery from a banking crisis of the severity that we went through is long and protracted, but we have to de-lever as an economy and try to fix our banking system. That is what I set out at the Mansion House. We also have to have a credible fiscal policy in order to allow monetary policy to be loose. I think that is the best economic approach.

Brian Binley: My grandmother taught me that there are only two things people can do when they are in serious financial difficulty: cut spending, and earn more. The Chancellor’s record on cutting spending has been commendable, but more needs to be done on earning more. What will he do to enhance productivity to help this country earn more?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that Britain has got to earn its way in the world, and that is about increasing our earnings as well as dealing with our expenditure. In the Budget, we set out a number of
	tax changes, such as the new employment allowance, which I know he strongly supports and which will help small firms by wiping out the first £2,000 of national insurance, taking a third of those firms out of national insurance. We have made a series of other tax changes to promote investment, and where we had to make tough spending choices, I have chosen in this spending round to prioritise things that will help businesses to create jobs.

Geoffrey Robinson: Is the Chancellor not aware that he has been in post for three years now, that he owns these policies and that their failure is his responsibility? All the empty rhetorical questions directed at the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor will not airbrush away the failings on growth, living standards and borrowings. Is it not time he faced up to that and changed the policies that have failed so far?

George Osborne: I tell you what has happened while this Government have been in office. First, borrowing has come down—[Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor says it has gone up, but the problem is that if this really is his maths, the country would be in very serious trouble if he ever got himself back into Downing street. We were borrowing £157 billion a year under Labour and now we are set to borrow £108 billion in the coming year—£118 billion if we remove the asset purchase facility transfer. So borrowing has come down.
	Secondly, more than 1 million jobs have been created. Thirdly, we can look around the world and see that this country is seen to have got its act together and is making the big reforms we need to education, welfare and the like. That is why we are absolutely determined to win the global race and people see us as a country capable of winning that race.

Andrea Leadsom: I sincerely congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. Not that he needs any advice from me, but he should stick to his guns because he is on the right track. I find myself agreeing violently with my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), that this is about earning. In particular, I congratulate the Chancellor on his policies on education and apprenticeships to get young people better educated and in work. May I bring to his attention the fact that I have just recruited a new apprentice for my parliamentary office from Magdalen college school in Brackley? Will he join me in urging all colleagues to look into the apprenticeship scheme and how it might help them in their work?

George Osborne: I thank my hon. Friend for her support and kind words. We are absolutely going to stick to this economic plan—that is what is taking Britain out of rescue into recovery. If we abandon that plan and if we listen to the advice of the Labour party—although the shadow Chancellor did not mention it in his statement, Labour’s plan is to borrow more—we would be back in intensive care. She is right also to highlight the success of apprenticeships, as there are over 1 million more of them. We are committing to the funding of apprenticeships in this programme. A significant part of my statement was also about school reform, and when people look at it they will see that it is one of the most important parts of the statement.

Michael Meacher: As the Chancellor’s private sector infrastructure proposals will take years to gain traction, if they ever do, why does he not use public investment to kick-start the economy now, as the only effective means to do so quickly, without any increase in public borrowing at all? He could do that through a further tranche of quantitative easing, specifically targeted on industrial investment; by instructing the state-owned banks to lend to industry at the scale required; or, most obviously, given that he talks about fairness, by taxing the super-rich, who have made massive gains since the crash, in the last five years.

George Osborne: First, we are committing to public investment as well as seeking to secure private investment. The first of the right hon. Gentleman’s ideas is about printing money to spend it on things. That has been tried by a number of countries but it does not always have a happy ending. Secondly, he has this plan to take over full control of the banks and run the banking system as a nationalised banking system. I do not think that would be a sensible approach; it would make the problems in our banking system worse rather than better.
	Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman talks about taxes. I recall, as I was an MP on the Opposition Benches at the time, that he was a Minister when his Government had a 40% tax rate, whereas we have a 45% rate. I do not remember him getting up at this Dispatch Box and complaining all the time that his Government were not increasing taxes on the rich. I seem to remember his good friend Peter Mandelson saying that they were all
	“intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”.
	Under this Government—I hope the right hon. Gentleman would support this—the richest are paying a greater percentage of our tax than under his Government.

David Burrowes: My constituents will welcome a fair review of welfare, schools and health. Will the Chancellor take the opportunity to renew his and our party’s vow to recognise marriage in the tax system and ensure that it is implemented as soon as possible within this Parliament?

George Osborne: I can give my hon. Friend the absolutely clear commitment that we will bring forward the proposals to recognise marriage in the tax system—the proposals we set out in our manifesto that are provided for in the coalition agreement—in due course.

Toby Perkins: The Chancellor has told us today that he is going to bring forward infrastructure spending, but of course we have heard it all before. We reflect on a record of complete failure on infrastructure spending, whereby the money he announces does not actually get delivered. Why should we have any more confidence that what we have heard today will be any more successful than what he has brought to us the previous times he has stood at that Dispatch Box?

George Osborne: Because the road schemes that we committed to at this Dispatch Box got their planning permission, or are getting it, and the construction is starting. Some of those road schemes have been completed. The same is true with the schools and all the other pieces of infrastructure. One of our big problems was
	the complete absence when we came into office of a bunch of plans that were ready to go and had planning permission. We have had to do all that. I am all for speeding up Whitehall and the planning process, but I seem to remember that the Labour party voted against the planning reforms. So when we try to make those changes, which the former Chancellor was good enough to acknowledge are needed because of all the problems that previous Governments have had, actually he has opposed them.

Julian Huppert: I was delighted to hear confirmation that the unfair schools funding formula will finally change. Schools in Cambridgeshire have been underfunded for decades and pupils there now get the least of pupils anywhere in the country—they get £600 less than the average. I am very grateful for this money, as all the pupils in Cambridgeshire and other counties will be. When will that extra money start to arrive in our schools, which so desperately need it?

George Osborne: The Education Secretary and the Minister for Schools, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), will set out details of how the formula will work. It is certainly our intention to introduce it in this Parliament, but we shall consult on it. Obviously it is a complex reform, but we have set out the ambition and the principles today, and the Department for Education will now take it forward.

Stewart Hosie: The Budget previously told us that discretionary consolidation for 2015-16 would be £130 billion rising to £155 billion. The Chancellor announced another £11.5 billion today and the pace of the cuts will go on until 2018. That still represents stripping consumption out of the economy equivalent to 8% of GDP, so why does he think that will deliver growth at all? He has told us previously that the ratio of cuts to tax rises would be 4:1, and nothing today changes that. He is still planning to balance the books on the back of the poor.
	On the funding for Departments and, in this case, for Scotland, we face another £40 million revenue cut, on top of the £103 million revenue cut announced in the Budget and the 6.5% cut in the last comprehensive spending review, combined with a 25% cut to capital in the last CSR. This plan A has failed. What makes the Chancellor think that making the same mistakes all over again will deliver a different result this time around?

George Osborne: First, all parts of the United Kingdom have to make savings, but because of the application of the Barnett formula the savings in Scotland are 2%. I am not saying that will be easy, but it is not as difficult as the tasks that some English Departments face. We are also providing more borrowing powers for the Scottish Parliament to make its own decisions. We believe that is the right approach—devolution, with Scotland not only having the benefit of being in the United Kingdom and able to make its own decisions about the investments it makes, but benefiting from the very low interest rates that our credible fiscal policy delivers for all parts of the Union. It is pretty clear that if Scotland were independent, borrowing would be more expensive for the Scottish people.

Brooks Newmark: Most of my constituents care about two things: whether they have a job, and what level of interest they pay on the mortgage or their business. More than 1.3 million new jobs have been created in the private sector, over a quarter of a million new businesses have been created and we have record low interest on mortgages and on businesses. Does my right hon. Friend feel, like me, that that would be jeopardised if we followed the shadow Chancellor’s borrowing plans?

George Osborne: I fear that it would be jeopardised and this country would be back in intensive care. It is remarkable that the shadow Chancellor did not have the courage at that Dispatch Box to say that Labour would borrow more. Labour did say that for three years and now it has completely gone silent.

Edward Balls: What are you talking about?

George Osborne: What I am talking about is that the Labour leader said on Saturday that Labour would not borrow more and the shadow Chancellor said on Sunday that it would. Because there are two alternative Labour economic policies out there, I would quite like to know which one is which.

Geraint Davies: Bankers’ bonuses are going up 64% this year because bankers have moved their income from a 50p tax year to a 45p tax year. Will the Chancellor act to reverse that tax evasion, which he caused?

George Osborne: Bank bonuses are down 85% since the previous Government left office. We have curbed irresponsibility in our City, which was rife when the shadow Chancellor was City Minister. In all the years for which the hon. Gentleman was a Member of Parliament for Croydon and sat on the Government Benches, I do not remember him getting up and saying, “I want a higher top rate of tax, Gordon Brown”—sorry, I mean the right hon. Member for Fife. We did not hear that. The truth is that the tax rate for rich people is higher under this Government than it was when the hon. Gentleman represented the good people of Croydon.

Mr Speaker: It is good of the Chancellor to refer to the former Prime Minister by the title of his constituency, but it is an even better idea to get it right as Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.

Steven Baker: The Bank of England’s Andy Haldane recently told the Treasury Committee:
	“Let’s be clear, we have intentionally blown the biggest government bond bubble in history.”
	What contingency plans have the Government made to cope with that bond market bubble bursting?

George Osborne: First, let me say that I stand corrected, Mr Speaker, although I think that Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath is in the Kingdom of Fife. Yesterday we issued a 55-year bond so we are clearly able to borrow money for the long term. Our economic policy, the further stage of which we set out today, commands the confidence of the world.

Helen Goodman: The Chancellor is presiding over a situation in which an extra 200,000 children will be living in poverty while at the same time cutting taxes for millionaires. Does he think the parents of those children will think that is fair?

George Osborne: Child poverty went up by 300,000 during the recession of the previous Government, and the hon. Lady was a Government MP at the time. We have taken a number of actions today, such as that on the pupil premium, to help the poorest kids, and there is also the troubled families initiative. That means 400 families helped by our plans. The distributional analysis, as I showed, shows that the richest quintile in our society are paying the most as a result of the collection of these measures. We are demonstrating that it is possible to have progressive policies while living with sane public finances.

James Morris: In my constituency, 2,500 more people are in work than at the time of the general election. That employment growth is largely a result of Government investment in apprenticeships and skills. Does the Chancellor agree that we need to invest more in apprenticeships and skills and to give local areas more control over how they invest in skills?

George Osborne: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is good to hear that the businesses of the west midlands and Halesowen and Rowley Regis are taking the opportunity to grow, expand and take people on. We are committed to the apprenticeship programme and are also committing to more local involvement in how money is spent through the Heseltine local growth pot, which will be £10 billion over the rest of the decade. Through some of our apprenticeship reforms set out in the Richard review, we will give the businesses my hon. Friend represents much greater influence over the kinds of skills that are taught locally.

Keith Vaz: I welcome the protection of the counter-terrorism budget, although I do not think the Chancellor’s claim that the Home Secretary is the best in a generation would necessarily win the vote among the police service. The Home Office budget as a whole will be cut by 7% and earlier this year the UK Border Agency was abolished by the Prime Minister. How will we get the backlog of more than 250,000 cases down if the budget is to be cut and mandarins at the Home Office still receive bonuses of several millions of pounds?

George Osborne: The Home Office saving is 6.1%, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has demonstrated that she can live with a tough budget—which is true of all Government Departments at the moment—while delivering real reforms and improving the service we get at the end of it. Crime has come down to a 30-year low and immigration has already come down by a third. If the House has to choose between public services that are completely unaffordable and bust the country and public services that do not deliver a good service, that is no choice at all. We are delivering good public services that the country can afford.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am keen if at all possible to accommodate all remaining colleagues, but also to start the next business, the Second Reading of the Bill, by 2.30 pm. There is therefore a premium on brevity.

Bob Russell: Previous defence cuts mean that our Army is heading towards being smaller than it was at the battle of Waterloo, so that is hardly a triumph. Will the Chancellor confirm that there is now no need, based on his statement, for any cuts to any Army bands and will he also give a statement about why the family housing lived in by our brave soldiers is not being modernised?

George Osborne: We did win the battle of Waterloo with that Army, so we were not doing that badly. We are trying to make the choice to have a modern, deployable Army, fully equipped with the latest technology. To address the hon. Gentleman’s specific points, no reduction is required to the uniformed services. I would assume that that would include military bands, but that is for the Defence Secretary to set out. On housing, the Defence Secretary has set out a multi-billion pound plan to improve the housing stock for our brave soldiers and their families.

Luciana Berger: Half a million people in our country accessed emergency food aid in the past year. The main reason people give for having to go to a food bank is delays in receiving the support to which they are entitled, whether they are in or out of work. How does the Chancellor believe that that situation will improve as a result of the announcements he has made today?

George Osborne: Food bank use went up tenfold under the previous Labour Government. We have advertised the services of food banks, which are great local community projects, through the jobcentres. I know that I am not allowed to ask questions, so let me pose a rhetorical question. Labour Members complain about the use of food banks, but can they explain why their use went up tenfold under the previous Government?

Sarah Newton: I so welcome the step change in joining health and care services around people who need care. That is most welcome, as is the extra £3 billion spending to allow that vital integration. Will my right hon. Friend let the House know when the details of this vital reform will be published, so that we can all plan ahead?

George Osborne: I know that my hon. Friend has been a campaigner on social care issues. This is probably one of the most transformative announcements in the statement. The Health Secretary and the Local Government Secretary will set out shortly how it will work, but it will involve the local commissioning of social care services jointly by the NHS and local government to try to end the divide between the two services that people fall into. I am sure that my hon. Friend’s expertise will be drawn on, because she knows a lot about the subject.

Mark Durkan: The Chancellor outlined a new annually managed expenditure regime. Will he colour that in a little, particularly as regards Northern Ireland? Does he intend Northern Ireland to have its
	own separate welfare cap? How is it to be fixed? Will it take account of the higher rates of disability and long-term conditions in Northern Ireland or will the cap be used to try to taper Northern Ireland’s higher spending on those benefits?

George Osborne: The welfare cap will be for the United Kingdom, as we have a UK welfare system. It certainly will not be used to target Northern Ireland in particular. We want to ensure that more people in Northern Ireland have the opportunity to work and to get off benefits and although the subject has not featured in these questions, some of the changes we have announced to the jobcentre regime will help in this regard. We will ensure that they are suitably applied in Northern Ireland.

Robert Halfon: With the increased investment in nursery education, the pupil premium, apprenticeships, NHS social care and pensions, is this not a Government who help people from cradle to grave rather than saddling future generations with debt?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We are doing everything we can to help people get a job, get on in life and aspire to better things, whether that means helping the poorest pupils in schools through the pupil premium, helping troubled families rather than abandoning them, or ensuring that our elderly get help from our social care system. Across someone’s life, we are stepping in to help rather than, as my hon. Friend points out, burdening the next generation with debt that this generation does not have the courage to tackle.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. There are still a lot of colleagues standing. May I please ask colleagues now to put a single-sentence question, without preamble—in other words, a genuine short question, which I know will be accommodated by the Chancellor with a short reply?

Julie Hilling: With 300,000 more children in absolute poverty, how many more will be in poverty by 2015?

George Osborne: Child poverty projections are made independently, but I say to the hon. Lady that we are doing everything we can to give children from poorer backgrounds the very best start in life, with measures such as the pupil premium.

Mr Speaker: Following the example of the Hilling handbook, I call Mr Andrew Selous.

Andrew Selous: Will the Chancellor confirm that there will be a cap on benefits and not on the state pension in future?

George Osborne: Yes, absolutely. We received representations to include the state pension. We are not going to do so, but of course that will ultimately be decided at a general election.

Debbie Abrahams: Given the 5% cut in the grant to museums and the increase in operational freedoms the Chancellor has announced, when does he expect charges to be introduced and how much does he think the average cost will be?

George Osborne: There will be no museum charges; free entry will remain. What we are doing in the museums sector is introducing radical new freedoms, which have been welcomed across the sector. I think that is the right reform, which is to give more freedom to the front line.

Charlie Elphicke: As so little has been done about problems of tax avoidance over the past decade, can the Chancellor confirm that HMRC will have the resources and the cultural enthusiasm it needs to tackle tax avoidance? Does he also agree—

Mr Speaker: Order. One question is enough.

George Osborne: The short answer is yes, and the Exchequer Secretary is doing an excellent job in changing that culture, with the Department.

Chris Williamson: The Chancellor talked about rail investment in his statement. How many jobs is he creating in Dusseldorf, now that his Government have finalised their plans to spend £1.6 billion building the Thameslink trains in Germany, rather than in Derby? Is that a sensible use of taxpayers’ money?

George Osborne: Well, we were operating under the procurement rules of the previous Government.

Andrew Jones: May I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement of an increase in transport capital and his indication that it will be invested in our rail network? The boost in capacity and services will be welcomed by rail travellers.

George Osborne: I am glad for that welcome.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: The Chancellor knows that the north-east is already suffering disproportionately from his Government’s cuts, so can he tell the House what percentage of infrastructure spending will come to the north-east, and by when?

George Osborne: My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will set out the regional breakdown tomorrow.

Dan Rogerson: In his continuing discussions with the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department of Health and the Home Office, will the Chancellor urge them to follow the example of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Schools in ensuring that money is spent fairly across the whole country?

George Osborne: Yes.

Barry Gardiner: Because 67% of the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s budget is ring-fenced for the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, the Chancellor’s 8% cut actually equates to a 35% cut when the Department has to deliver an infrastructure plan which, at £200 billion, is the largest this country has ever seen. How is it going to be able to do that?

George Osborne: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about infrastructure capacity in Whitehall, and we will set out changes to infrastructure delivery tomorrow. The Department of Energy and Climate Change is part
	of that. Not only is the Energy Secretary on the case, but the new permanent secretary, Stephen Lovegrove, is too, and they are confident that they can deliver this within the budget.

Mary Macleod: There is a record number of apprenticeships in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the new announcement on apprenticeships means cross-sector and cross-industry support, as well as an increase in the number of girls going into science and engineering?

George Osborne: It is certainly our intention to increase the number of girls going into science and engineering and, indeed, to increase the number of people doing science and engineering subjects, both as schoolchildren and young adults. Our support for skills will help to deliver that.

Sammy Wilson: Some 10% of the capital funding for Northern Ireland will be in the form of financial transactions money, which requires the identification of private sector loan or equity investment-type arrangements. Can the Chancellor assure us that, with local Administrations, he will look for the greatest possible flexibility in the choice of those and in the timing of that spend?

George Osborne: I am happy to look at both the flexibility and the timing, and to make sure that my Department works closely with the devolved Administration in Belfast.

Stephen Mosley: Will the Chancellor do his utmost to ensure that all local authorities take advantage of the council tax freeze, which he has generously extended today?

George Osborne: I hope that all local authorities take it up, but ultimately that is a matter for them—that is local democracy.

Paul Farrelly: From 2006, the Conservative and Liberal Democrats who used to run Newcastle borough council spent all of our £50 million reserves. In dictating a further indiscriminate 10% cut across the board to local government, how carefully has the Chancellor considered its impact, council by council, on their ability to provide decent basic public services and to give discretionary support to valued community groups and organisations?

George Osborne: We are giving local councils more freedom, including some more flexibility in the use of assets, particularly where they want to spend to save. The broader point is that if all the changes in local government and social care I announced are taken into account, the change for local government is more like minus 2%—still difficult, but I think that good local councils can continue to deliver excellent local services.

George Eustice: I welcome the commitment the Chancellor made today to renew the water bill rebate for South West Water customers, which has been a vital respite for some 700,000 households in the west country. Does he agree
	with me that it would be wrong of any future Government to reverse that commitment for this spending review period?

George Osborne: I commend my hon. Friend for the campaign he has run. He has represented not only the people of his constituency but people across the south-west of England. Water bills are abnormally high because of the money that needs to be spent on cleaning up beaches and the like, and we have stepped in to help. It is this Government who have done that, after years of campaigns, and we have made the commitment to extend it. As for whether a Labour Government would remove it—well, they never introduced it when they were in office, so I suspect they would.

Clive Betts: Does the Chancellor accept that, since the beginning of this Parliament, the cut in central Government grant to local authorities has been twice as great as the cut in funding for central Government Departments? With that in mind, will he take seriously the comments of the chair of the Conservative party that local councils can manage the cuts announced today without any reduction in front-line services?

George Osborne: I think good local councils can manage the ask we are making of them. If the hon. Gentleman is complaining, the Labour party has not made it clear whether or not it supports this total mandatory expenditure, so the Opposition cannot really complain about individual cuts unless they tell us whether they would make other cuts, and so far I have not heard of any.

David Rutley: Is not the main message from today’s statement that more can be done for less? Do we not need to move forward on that because of the mess left by Labour?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is right: one of the central principles is that we can deliver more for less. Ultimately, we should not have to choose between public services we can afford and public services that deliver for people. We need both.

Seema Malhotra: Is it true that, according to figures on page 11 of the spending review document, the Chancellor is cutting capital infrastructure spending by 1.7% in 2015-16 compared with 2014-15?

George Osborne: We are maintaining capital investment at £50 billion.

Justin Tomlinson: The decision to introduce a fairer national education funding formula is vital for my local schools. How much did Labour’s formula short-change schools in Swindon?

George Osborne: The people of Swindon were short-changed in many ways by the Labour Government. Under the excellent leadership provided by my hon. Friend and his colleague, our hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), not only is Swindon’s voice heard in Parliament, but the changes this Government are making will help families in Swindon, including those with children at school.

Caroline Lucas: Given the news this week that the Government’s flagship green deal is failing in terms of both the planned jobs and its environmental targets, why will the Chancellor not introduce a big, bold investment in green infrastructure and home insulation in particular, to get people into jobs, get tax revenues up, reduce benefits and give hope to the millions of young people around the country today?

George Osborne: We have introduced investment. We have increased investment in renewable energy, so that a record amount is now going in. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will set out the strike prices this week, which will give long-term investors the certainty needed to increase renewable energy investment.

Stephen McCabe: Why is the Chancellor not big enough to admit that he was wrong to claim that borrowing fell last year?

George Osborne: When I became Chancellor we were borrowing £157 billion a year. We are forecast to borrow £108 billion a year, which is a reduction in borrowing.

Jonathan Edwards: Why is the Chancellor going to decide what capital investment projects should be delivered in Wales if the Silk commission is implemented, considering that transport is devolved?

George Osborne: There is a specific issue around borrowing powers and the M4 corridor through Newport. That has to be done in partnership with the Government in London, but we are very aware of the benefits of that scheme. The Welsh Assembly and the people of Wales will welcome what we are proposing to do on the devolution of further tax and borrowing powers. We will set that out shortly.

Jack Dromey: With the Government’s own figures showing that, despite all the promises, house building is down, construction is down, homelessness is up, rents are up, and housing waiting lists are at a record level, does the Chancellor accept that it is the legacy of his actions, including the catastrophic decision to cut £4 billion in affordable housing investment in 2010, that brings him to the Chamber today, and that he is responsible for three wasted years?

George Osborne: No, I do not accept that at all. The last Labour Government had a shocking record on house building, especially affordable house building. If the hon. Gentleman turns up in the Chamber tomorrow, he will hear some positive announcements about affordable house building.

Diana Johnson: Lord Heseltine’s plan for localising regeneration funding in a single pot would have cost £49 billion. The announcement today is for just £2 billion. Lord Heseltine said that such a figure would be a slap in the face for local areas. Does the Chancellor agree, and why did he not stand up to the Lib Dem Business Secretary, who opposed that idea?

George Osborne: It is £2 billion a year, making £10 billion. For the first time, local enterprise partnerships will be able to put in multi-year bids on the basis of a competitive tender that will enable investment in skills, transport and housing locally. It is a revolution in how the money is spent, rather than the situation that we inherited, in which all the spending decisions were made by the people doing my kind of job.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Chancellor for his commitment and his comments. He referred to extra money for the police in Northern Ireland to combat dissident republicans. Will he confirm that within that money sufficient funding will be available for the recruitment and training of new officers to combat the dissident republican threat?

George Osborne: We have provided just over £30 million to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I am confident that within that resource the PSNI can undertake the recruitment and training that it requires to police Northern Ireland effectively for all communities.

Nicholas Dakin: Given that 16 to 18-year-olds attend schools as well as colleges, does the Chancellor’s unequivocal commitment to protect school funding in real terms extend to the funding of 16 to 18-year-olds?

George Osborne: We set out the school commitment in the direct school grant and the pupil premium. We have invested in the education of young people as well as the education of young adults.

Alison McGovern: Does the Chancellor believe that since he came to office the average British family is better off after inflation, yes or no?

George Osborne: I think that they have better economic prospects than they did under the previous Government.

Sheila Gilmore: The best way to reduce the housing benefit bill is to tackle the structural reasons for the rise in spending. What steps in the statement has the Chancellor taken to ensure that that happens—not by building houses at 80% of market rent, I suggest?

George Osborne: I agree with the hon. Lady, as one of the things that we need to do is build more homes, and that is what we have set out to do. The housing benefit budget ballooned under the Labour Government, and we have taken action to curb it. If she is against any of our housing benefit reforms she can always let us know. As far as I can see, the Labour party has not made a commitment to reverse any of them at the moment, but who knows, that might change.

Nia Griffith: Confidence to invest long term in industry has been severely damaged by the Government’s creation of uncertainty over the EU, their failure to set 2030 decarbonisation targets, and their failure to control excessively high energy prices. The steel industry faces a crisis in demand. How many of the Chancellor’s mythical lists of infrastructure projects will actually begin this year?

George Osborne: As I said, we are spending more as a percentage of national income on infrastructure in this decade than in the previous decade. What I would say to the hon. Lady about energy-intensive industries such as steel is that there is support, which the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is going to extend as a result of the statement to help them to cope with their high energy costs.

Gemma Doyle: Living standards have fallen in every year of the Chancellor’s Government. When is he going to get the message that his strategy is not working?

George Osborne: As I said, the economic plan is taking Britain from rescue to recovery. I do not know if the hon. Lady knows any more about what the Labour party’s economic policy is. We did not hear from the shadow Chancellor the simple fact that he wants to borrow more. He has abandoned his argument but tragically he has stuck with the policy.

William Bain: The £50 billion figure cited by the Chancellor for capital investment for 2015-16 is gross. Will he say whether net capital investment in 2015-16 will be higher or lower than the year before?

George Osborne: As I said, we are maintaining capital investment in the way that I set out in the statement.

Mr Speaker: Fifty-five Back Benchers contributed in 47 minutes of exclusively Back-Bench time, so I am grateful to colleagues, including, of course, the Chancellor.

BILL PRESENTED

Railways Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Caroline Lucas, supported by John McDonnell, Ian Lavery, Katy Clark, Jeremy Corbyn, Mr Elfyn Llwyd, Jonathan Edwards, Hywel Williams, Kelvin Hopkins, John Cryer, Grahame M. Morris and Martin Caton, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to assume control of passenger rail franchises when they come up for renewal; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 October, and to be printed (Bill 81).

High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill

Second Reading

Mr Speaker: Before I call the Minister to move the motion on Second Reading, I have a brief announcement to make. This Bill relates to a proposal which would affect my own constituency, as is well known. I have taken the view that it would best protect and demonstrate the impartiality of the Chair if I did not take the decision on whether the reasoned amendment should be selected. I therefore referred the matter to the Chairman of Ways and Means. His decision is that the amendment should be selected, and I have accepted that.

Patrick McLoughlin: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	Today, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has set out far-reaching plans to provide the infrastructure that we need to compete in the global race. We need better roads, better airports, better ports, and better rail links too—an ambitious programme for all parts of our country, with HS2 an important part of that. A growing economy, a growing population and growing demand for transport, which have seen rail travel double in a decade, mean that we must act. HS2 will be the first new main rail line north of London for 120 years, linking at least eight of our 10 largest cities, and improving services for Scotland too. I am pleased that HS2 enjoys the broad backing of all the main parties in the House. I want to make three points.

Cheryl Gillan: The Secretary of State has just said that the proposed High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill paves the way for links to Scotland, so will he explain why clause 1(2)(a) does not make any mention of Scotland or proposals to connect HS2 to Scotland?

Patrick McLoughlin: I shall come on to explain, if I may make a bit of progress, the way in which we shall link up to Scotland, and why the Bill covers the area. The Bill provides that important opportunity, and I shall come on that in a short while.
	As I was saying, I want to make three points: first, the reason why a new high-speed line is right; secondly, the purpose of the Bill; and thirdly, the work that we are doing to manage the costs of the scheme. Why is HS2 necessary? The answer is not only speed, although HS2 will take an hour off journeys between London and Manchester, and between Birmingham and Leeds, and it will bring two thirds of people in the north of England within two hours of London.

Fiona Bruce: Is the Secretary of State aware that if there is to be a tangible economic benefit to my constituency and the wider Cheshire region, there must be a hub station stop at Crewe, otherwise it will take longer to travel by High Speed 2 up to Manchester and then travel down on a local line to that area?

Patrick McLoughlin: I know that my hon. Friend is concerned, as I am, to make sure that there are sufficient connections right across the country. We have not yet reached the consultation stage on phase 2. Part of the
	reason why we published phase 2, although it would have been easier not to do that, was to show our commitment to serving the north, right up to Manchester, Leeds and the east midlands. So I am pretty sure that I will be hearing a lot more from my hon. Friend and others on the question of where the station should be located—Crewe or Staffordshire.

Paul Farrelly: rose—

Patrick McLoughlin: I met a group of Members from—well, I was going to say Staffordshire—I met two Members from Stoke-on-Trent and one from Staffordshire, and I give way to him.

Paul Farrelly: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way and for his generous offer of coming to visit and see the lie of the land in north Staffordshire and east Cheshire. He will appreciate after our meeting that it is difficult for Members from north Staffordshire to support HS2 as it stands because it may very well, on the current modelling, reduce the number of direct trains from Stoke-on-Trent from 31 a day to just three a day. This knock-on issue is relevant to people from Stockport all the way down to Coventry, as he will see from the amendment. What assurances can he give that the west coast main line in the future, after HS2, will not become the ghost train line running a skeleton service, as the projections currently suggest?

Patrick McLoughlin: I met the hon. Gentleman yesterday along with two of his colleagues, and I can assure him that this is about providing extra capacity, not reducing services to areas. I want to consider the points that he and two of his hon. Friends made to me yesterday along the same lines. I do not recognise where he gets his figure of three services per day compared to the present level of service. Of course, that will be part of the consultation and one of the aspects that we will examine fully as we move forward.

Jonathan Edwards: The last time I looked, York, Manchester, Birmingham and London were in England. HS2 was clearly an England-only project, yet there will be Barnett consequentials. Unless the Secretary of State can state that there will be equivalent consequentials for Wales amounting to about £2 billion, we will vote against the Bill at every stage.

Patrick McLoughlin: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman feels that way, because I believe there will be advantages to Wales as well. As HS2 serves an area up to the north Wales coast, there will be ways in which that can be an advantage. I think he is saying that he will vote against because he is not getting the opportunity to get high-speed services. If we do not get the route as currently proposed, he has no chance of getting any high-speed opportunity whatsoever. He will see, if he looks at the way the plans are laid out, that this can be developed further—even further up to Scotland, as the Bill makes clear.

Angus MacNeil: The Minister talks of expansion further up to Scotland. When? Given the remarks about no Barnett consequentials, the “when” is not in a decade, but should be here and now.

Patrick McLoughlin: I announced last October the work that was already being commissioned by HS2 to take the link up to Scotland, and I am more than happy to have discussions with Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Government about that.

Mark Lazarowicz: I suspect that even the Scottish National party does not expect the line to reach the constituency of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) any time soon, but I hope it will reach my constituency.

Frank Dobson: This century?

Mark Lazarowicz: I would like to believe that it will not be next century and that my constituents will be able to benefit from the line as well. Clearly, they will benefit from faster services in so far as they can use the line further south, but we need to see work being done now and commitments made now to ensure that the further additions from HS2 do not start happening only in 2033.

Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. As I announced last October, I have asked HS2 to start doing the work on that, and I hope to be in a position to say more about it in due course. I cannot give him a specific date at this stage because there are some very big issues to address.
	I was saying that HS2 will bring about two thirds of the people in the north of England within two hours of London. Its purpose is not merely to keep pace with our competitors, although it is worth pointing out that Italy will soon have 926 miles of high-speed rail, whereas we have just 67 miles.

Julian Smith: Is not Lille in the north of France an excellent example of the benefits that high speed can bring to a city?

Patrick McLoughlin: Indeed, and I will say a little more about Lille shortly. I think my hon. Friend may have a copy of my speech, although as I was working on it until not long ago, I would be surprised if he had.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Patrick McLoughlin: Mr Speaker, I know that a great number of Members want to speak in the debate and I will give way a number of times, but I am mindful of the fact that you asked me to allow plenty of time for others to take part.

Jim Cunningham: I apologise to the Secretary of State for coming in late and I appreciate the fact that he has given way to me. Can he tell me what Coventry will get out of high-speed rail and, more importantly, what about a decent compensation package?

Patrick McLoughlin: I will come on to say something about compensation later in my speech. I think Coventry will get many benefits. The whole west midlands area will get a huge number of benefits from HS2. I want to see councils such as Coventry start working to make sure that they can get the best out of High Speed 2,
	from both the connections and the way we serve those areas. I know the hon. Gentleman is incredibly concerned about the way we serve Coventry. As somebody who knows Coventry relatively well, I am also concerned to see that take place.

Caroline Lucas: The Secretary of State is very kind to give way. My point is that not only is the route of HS2 environmentally damaging, but the whole scheme is socially regressive. It is unaffordable to the bottom 50% of income bands and, in effect, it redirects money from the poorest to the richest. How can he justify this reverse Robin Hood strategy when that £33 billion could be better invested in giving us a better rail system for everybody, not just for the privileged few?

Patrick McLoughlin: I find the hon. Lady’s position on the issue strange. I should have thought that the Green party would welcome such investment in public railway systems. [Interruption.] I think I had better answer the hon. Lady. HS2 brings a great increase in capacity and I want to say more about that a little later. That is one of the important issues that lies behind the need for HS2. Also, as I point out to colleagues, going from St Pancras station to Canterbury, the first part of the route from St Pancras to Ashford on a high-speed train is a fantastic fast journey, then one hits the Victorian railway network to Canterbury and the journey slows down completely. I want the rest of the country to get the benefit of high-speed rail, not just the area in the south which already has a high-speed service.

Sammy Wilson: rose—

Patrick McLoughlin: I am not sure I can extend the service to Northern Ireland.

Sammy Wilson: And I have no idea how the Minister would extend it to Northern Ireland, but Northern Ireland does not benefit from the Barnett consequentials of this spend, either. Because there is a construction interest, can he give an assurance that when it comes to procurement, there will be no repetition of the mistakes that were made in the past whereby UK-based companies did not benefit from some of the high-spend capital projects, and there will be opportunities for construction firms from Northern Ireland?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am more than happy to do that and I shall say more about that later. Crossrail has set a good example. About 97% of Crossrail goods are serviced by British companies, and the Mayor of London is in the process of purchasing a huge infrastructure project, the new London buses, from Northern Ireland. That is very much in my mind with regard to the way I will be dealing with HS2 and talking to the management of HS2.

Damian Collins: My right hon. Friend mentioned his rail journey to Canterbury. I encourage him to take a different branch on High Speed 1 and travel to Folkestone, as he will see that the investment in High Speed 1 is the biggest single advantage we have in promoting the east Kent regional growth area.

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes that point from vast experience. It is worth remembering how controversial High Speed 1 was when it was built. I will talk about that a little later. The simple fact is that every infrastructure project—not nearly every project, but every project—is very controversial when it first starts, and in that regard High Speed 2 is no different.

Alec Shelbrooke: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Patrick McLoughlin: I will not be in the position that you are in, Mr Speaker, of having actually counted the number of interventions I have taken, but I will give way to my hon. Friend.

Alec Shelbrooke: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that all major infrastructure projects are controversial. Would he like to reflect on where he thinks the great city of Leeds would be today had we not built the M1?

Andrew Bridgen: Probably in the same place. [Laughter.]

Patrick McLoughlin: Indeed, but it would be very difficult to get to, and it would not have benefited from the improvements we have seen there.
	I think that the answer starts with a simple point: without HS2, the key rail and road routes connecting London to the midlands and the north will soon be overwhelmed. Even on moderate forecasts, the west coast main line, the nation’s key rail corridor, will be full by the mid-2020s, a point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), who wants more services from Shrewsbury to Blackpool. Having served as a Transport Minister in 1989, I know that the fundamental change that has taken place since then is that the pressure on a Transport Secretary now is often to find more services for the rail industry and more rail connections across the country—I was just talking about the west coast main line—and that is despite £9 billion of improvements north of Rugby in recent years. That means investing in the current infrastructure and trying to improve it. There are still problems south of Rugby, which is why Virgin has suffered problems in meeting some of the criteria it regards as important in providing the right kind of service.

Cheryl Gillan: Has the Secretary of State had an opportunity to look at the financial results released by Virgin Trains this morning? They indicate that profits are down by 40.5% but revenue is up by 2.8%, which is roughly the same rate as the fare increases, so the passenger increase must be very small. It says that it has now increased capacity by 40%, and this month it started a major advertising campaign to attract passengers. Does that sound like a railway line that is full to capacity?

Patrick McLoughlin: No, it sounds like a railway that is providing the services that all colleagues want to see. As I pointed out a few moments ago, in certain areas hon. Friends are pressing for further services that cannot be provided because Network Rail says there is no availability on the existing highways.

Marcus Jones: My right hon. Friend can rest assured that, for a change, I will not be using this opportunity as a pitch to get more fast services to Nuneaton on the west coast main line. Can he assure me that, despite the investment being made in HS2, investment will still be made to continue to improve the services and capacity on the west coast main line?

Patrick McLoughlin: Yes, indeed. That is one of the points that will become very apparent with the investment programmes we have over the coming years and that Network Rail will be carrying out. I can assure my hon. Friend that it is not a case of either/or; it is essential to invest in both areas.

David Mowat: I would like to add a thought on the capacity question. Will the Secretary of State confirm that over the past 15 years passenger numbers have increased by an average of 5% a year and that the business case for HS2 assumes an increase of 1.6% a year, which is quite a conservative estimate?

Patrick McLoughlin: Indeed, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Basically, 15 years ago there were about 750 million passenger journeys, and the latest estimate is for 1.5 billion passenger journeys, which is a massive shift that I would have thought my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) would welcome.

William Cash: rose—

Steven Baker: rose—

Patrick McLoughlin: Now, there is a choice. As a bit of a conservative, I will go with seniority, if my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) will forgive me.

William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend accept that, in relation to my constituency, this project goes from top to bottom and is deeply opposed by all and sundry? I have had meetings with thousands of constituents already. Will he accept that, according to the Public Accounts Committee, the pricing is unrealistic, the values for journey time savings are untenable and there has been insufficient analysis of non-rail alternatives? What answer does he give to the Public Accounts Committee and my constituents, who are deeply angered by this?

Patrick McLoughlin: To my hon. Friend’s constituents I say this: I understand that a big piece of infrastructure of the size of HS2 will obviously have an impact. I respect and understand that and do not criticise those people who raise objections. I will move on to talk about compensation later. He talks about an area where we are yet to confirm the route. We will be having a full and proper consultation later this year, when he and his constituents will be able to make those points. I will want to see what can be done to help with some of the environmental points. I also point out that part of the west coast main line runs through his constituency, and it, too, was very unpopular when it was built, but it is very beneficial to the area, because I know that he often takes the train from Stafford to get to London. I will give way once more to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe, but then I will have to make some progress.

Steven Baker: In relation to passenger numbers, my right hon. Friend will know the old aphorism that if one subsidises anything, one gets more of it. Will he remind us how much subsidy the rail industry has received over the past few years?

Patrick McLoughlin: One of the things we are trying to do is drive out some of the subsidy in the railways to make it cheaper and more affordable for companies, but it is certainly true that there is subsidy in the rail industry. However, we have to think about people being able to get to work and what that subsidy supports. Sometimes the commuter in London, and the commuter in my hon. Friend’s constituency, deserves that support to enable him to get to the jobs that are available elsewhere. One has to be realistic and understanding about that.
	I will now try to make some progress, because I have now been speaking for longer than I had intended to take for my whole speech. This is not about a choice between upgrading the existing railway and building a new one. Upgrades will not provide the extra capacity we need. The choice is between a new high-speed line and a new conventional railway. The significant additional benefits make high-speed rail the right answer. Of course, big infrastructure projects are always controversial. As I often say, the easiest thing in the world for the Government to do would be not to build HS2 or to commit to it, but the costs of doing so would be huge.
	It would be a cost in jobs. Our modest estimates indicate that HS2 will create and support 100,000 jobs, while the group of core cities predict that it will underpin 400,000 jobs, 70% of them outside London. It would be a cost in prosperity. Some estimates suggest that HS2 will add over £4 billion to the economy even before it is open. The line is estimated to provide around £50 billion in economic benefits once it is up and running. If we do not go ahead with HS2, there will also be a cost in lost opportunities for the towns and cities in the midlands and the north. I am not prepared to put up with a situation in which someone can get to Brussels on a high-speed train line, but not to Birmingham; to Strasbourg, but not to Sheffield; or to Lille, but not to Leeds. We cannot afford to leave the economic future of our great cities such as Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, Nottingham and Derby to an overcrowded 200-year-old railway.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: rose—

Patrick McLoughlin: I did say that I would not give way any more, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My right hon. Friend knows, as does the rest of the House, that much of that high-speed European railway was built with European money. How much investigation has he done with the European authorities into how much he might be able to reduce the enormous £32 billion cost of the railway?

Patrick McLoughlin: We will be looking at that. I will say a bit more about costs a little later, if my hon. Friend will wait. As always, we will look at how we finance, and not necessarily just in respect of the area to which he has referred. We could see private sector investment in some of the stations that we are going to develop. I will say something more about the stations in a few moments.
	We will deliver the investment to develop new stations and growth at places such as Old Oak Common in west London, where we will invest more than £920 million in a new hub linking the west country, Crossrail and HS2. At Curzon street in Birmingham, we will invest £335 million on station developments. Similar investments are due in Manchester, Leeds and other great railway centres such as Sheffield and the east midlands.
	HS2 will also allow for significant improvements to the rail service on the existing main north-south lines, providing benefits for towns such as Milton Keynes, Tamworth and Lichfield. It will provide real scope to get more freight on to the railways, which I would have thought the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) would welcome. It will also free up capacity on the M1, the M6 and the M40.
	My second point this afternoon is about the Bill before the House. It will authorise essential expenditure on the preparation work for high-speed rail. Planning and building the line will take time.

Natascha Engel: On the point about this legislation being the paving Bill and agreeing the expenditure before the line gets built, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will publish the receipts relating to everything spent as we advance to building the line, so that we can assure ourselves annually that the money spent represents value for money to the taxpayer?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am about to make exactly that point; obviously, somebody else has an advance copy of my speech.
	The line will be overseen and delivered by successive Parliaments, which is why it is right to provide Parliament with the opportunity to debate the project. The hybrid Bill will provide additional opportunities for closer scrutiny of HS2. This is the moment for Parliament to demonstrate that it is backing British business, jobs and growth by backing HS2.
	Let me say how the Bill will help achieve those aims. Without this legislation, Treasury rules would limit the amount of work that could be done or undertaken until after Royal Assent on the hybrid Bill. That includes design work on the construction of the line, planning the movement of utilities and carrying out ecological surveys. The legislation will also ensure that future spending on the discretionary property compensation is compliant with the PAC requirements.

Dan Byles: My right hon. Friend is being generous with his time. From the moment the train line was announced, the property market up and down the route has frozen solid. Unless my constituents can demonstrate an exceptional hardship, they cannot sell their homes and move. I implore the Secretary of State once again to reconsider a property bond as the single most helpful move he could make to help alleviate a lot of the suffering being caused right now, today, by the project.

Patrick McLoughlin: I assure my hon. Friend that, if he has a little patience, I will say something about that exact point a little later.
	The PAC requirement states that when there is significant new expenditure that is likely to persist, authority should normally be sought from Parliament. I appreciate that
	many hon. Members have concerns about the authorisation of expenditure on early works in advance of the subsequent hybrid Bill. That is why this Bill ensures complete transparency in what we are doing, when we are doing it and—crucially—how much we are spending.
	The Bill creates a duty on the Secretary of State to produce an annual financial report on the amount of expenditure incurred, allowing Parliament to keep a check on the costs and progress. I hope that that answers the point made by the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel).

Natascha Engel: Will the Secretary of State publish the receipts?

Patrick McLoughlin: I will look at the detail of that. I am certainly determined that Parliament should be kept well informed and, of course, the company will be open to the scrutiny of the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office reporting to the PAC. There is a way in which the House can keep an eye on the matter.
	My third point is about funding. We can today welcome the allocation made by the Chancellor in infrastructure investment. Tomorrow, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will say more about our plans. I know that in the context of the Bill, the House will want to be updated on the cost of HS2. I can therefore tell the House that tomorrow I will be writing to the chairman of HS2 Ltd to set a target price for delivering phase 1 of the project. That amount is £17 billion at 2011 prices. That takes account of the design and environmental changes to improve the scheme. Those changes include a tunnel from Old Oak Common to Northolt, design changes at Euston station, and a tunnel under the M6 near Birmingham.
	As a responsible Government, we must be prudent, which means allowing the right level of contingency. In addition, therefore, we have set an overall indicative amount for the budget for phase 1 of £21.4 billion. For phase 2, it is £21.2 billion, so the total is £42.6 billion at 2011 prices. That includes £12.7 billion of contingency.

Graham Stringer: At Prime Minister’s questions this afternoon, I asked the Prime Minister why the Government were opposing the continuation of the trans-European network north of London. The Prime Minister clearly did not have an answer, and I will understand if the Secretary of State does not. However, will the Secretary of State find out why we are opposing the extension of that network? While we are in the European Union, that could be cutting off a source of funding.

Patrick McLoughlin: I heard the hon. Gentleman’s question to the Prime Minister. Those debates on that whole process are ongoing and still at an early stage. I have some worries and I would want to get clarification before we changed the Government’s position.

Andrea Leadsom: rose—

Patrick McLoughlin: I have not yet given way to my hon. Friend, so I will now.

Andrea Leadsom: Will my right hon. Friend explain what the £12.7 billion of contingency will do to the benefit-cost ratio? During the consultation period, it was always made clear that the £32 billion was the absolute maximum and contained a vast sum for contingency.

Patrick McLoughlin: At the moment, the value-cost ratio is reckoned to be 2.5. I also point out that the BCR tells us some things, but not everything. For instance, the BCR on the Jubilee line was a lot lower than that for High Speed 2. If the Jubilee line had not been developed, a lot of the development in Canary Wharf would never have taken place. The line brought a huge amount of investment into the area and the country. It is important that we are seen to be able to compete with other countries in the global race to attract businesses to this country. The point also relates to the Olympic games, where a contingency was allowed and in fact the price of the games came in below the budget that had been set by the Government. I expect the final costs to be lower than those I have outlined. However, I take on board my hon. Friend’s point about BCR.

Andrew Bridgen: My right hon. Friend has announced that the total budget for the infrastructure plan will be about £43 billion. Does that include the £8 billion for the rolling stock?

Patrick McLoughlin: If my hon. Friend will allow me to make a bit more progress, he will find that I am going to be very open with the House and put all this out into the public domain. I want to be as open as I possibly can.

Christopher Pincher: rose—

Patrick McLoughlin: I give way to my hon. Friend, who I met yesterday—I think, but the days are getting a bit blurred at the moment.

Christopher Pincher: They are getting blurred for us all. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way and for yesterday meeting my constituents from Hints, Weeford and Drayton Bassett to discuss their concerns about compensation and mitigation. He has rightly referred to the great concern that people have about the compensation and mitigation that is available. In setting a budget for phase 1, will he prevail on HS2 to be as efficient as possible so that money can be saved and spent on mitigations in Staffordshire?

Patrick McLoughlin: The meeting that I had yesterday with my hon. Friend and his constituents was very useful, and I gave them an undertaking to look at some of the points they made. I have had varying reports on how some of the public consultations have gone. I am determined that we improve the way in which they are conducted so that people get more reliable answers on the points they are making, and as quickly as possible, although sometimes these things take a lot of time if particular requests are made as to routes and the like. I thank my hon. Friend for behaving very constructively in the points that he is making.

Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, and pleased to be able to follow the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher). Next
	week I will be bringing people from Lichfield, Whittington and Armitage to see him to discuss, primarily, mitigation. May I ask him about compensation? He will know that with the current route I will have real difficulties with the hybrid Bill; in fact, I will not be able to support it. The Country Land and Business Association says that this stage of the game is the only opportunity to get compensation into legislation so that we can give it to people in my constituency, and indeed in Tamworth, who have been blighted for the past three years.

Patrick McLoughlin: As someone who was born and brought up in Staffordshire, I know the area that my hon. Friends are talking about incredibly well. Without the authority of this Bill, we would be in a very difficult position as regards exceptional hardship. I mentioned earlier some of the requirements of the PAC in relation to accountability in spending money on a project without the approval of Parliament, and that also relates to compensation.

Dennis Skinner: rose—

Patrick McLoughlin: I cannot not give way to my constituency neighbour.

Dennis Skinner: The Secretary of State has been dealing with blight, and he mentions Staffordshire, but he also knows Derbyshire well, and he knows a village called Pinxton. I spoke about blight when he made his original statement, and I was staggered to be told within hours by a farmer in Pinxton who was selling his farm that as soon as the statement had been made he was told that he would never sell his farm. How is that farmer going to be compensated?

Patrick McLoughlin: I will say a little more about compensation in a moment. I accept and appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point about the impact of naming the route. At the time of HS1 several routes were announced and there was potentially more widespread blight. In HS2 we have tried to be more specific about the routes so that we avoid widespread blight. However, I also say to the hon. Gentleman, who is well versed in how these things work, that we will be going out to consultation on phase 2—I will be announcing that in the very near future—and that will enable his constituents and those of the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire to make their points, find out more information, and possibly propose alternative suggestions and ideas.

Sammy Wilson: The Secretary of State said that there is a contingency provision of nearly 40% in this project. Is that typical of a project of this size, or does it indicate a higher degree of risk than would usually be associated with such a project?

Patrick McLoughlin: It is a normal level of contingency that would be put into a scheme of this sort, and it is built in on an internationally based calculation.
	This is the right way to plan for the project. In addition, with or without HS2, new rolling stock will be needed on the key inter-city routes linking London and the north over the next 20 years. I hope that deals with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for
	North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen). We are therefore budgeting £7.5 billion for HS2 rolling stock. To put that in perspective, the current inter-city express programme to replace trains on the east coast and Great Western lines, which is creating jobs in the north east, will cost £4.9 billion. The money that I have just announced for the rolling stock for HS2 also includes a contingency of some £1.5 billion.
	Good infrastructure is an investment in economic growth. We are investing £14.5 billion to build Crossrail, while £11 billion has been invested in new infrastructure at Heathrow since 2003. Over the period of construction, the cost of HS2 will be less than 0.15% of GDP—I repeat, less than 0.15% of GDP. This is an investment that the country can sustain and needs. That is why tomorrow the Chief Secretary will set out the detailed HS2 funding allocations for the six-year period until 2020-21.
	Before I finish, I want to explain what we are doing for those affected by the line. As I said earlier and have tried to make clear throughout this Second Reading speech, I do not dismiss those with objections as irrelevant. We do indeed need to design HS2 carefully, consult properly and compensate fairly. I hope that I can reassure people about why it is right to go ahead. Some have concerns about the impact of HS2 on the landscape. While I cannot deny that a project of this scale will have an effect, I believe that the positive experience of our first high-speed line in Kent shows that the consequences can be managed without wrecking the countryside. For instance, while not a single mile of the M1 is in-tunnel, about 40 miles of HS2 will be in-tunnel. Of the 12.4 miles that crosses the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty, 5.8 miles will be in-tunnel and 3.5 miles will be in deep cuttings. No part of phase 2 of the route crosses any national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty.
	It is also important to ensure that proper compensation is made to those affected by HS2. That is why we have introduced the exceptional hardship scheme although there was no statutory requirement to do so. We believe that home owners already affected with a pressing need to move should have recourse to compensation, but without the authority of Parliament to incur expenditure to continue with this compensation, I would need to consider carefully what other mechanisms, if any, we could use. Very soon, we will start a new consultation on compensation.

Clive Betts: I have met some of my constituents in Greasbro road in Tinsley in Sheffield, whose homes will be demolished by the scheme. They accept that to a degree, but they ask me whether it is reasonable that people who, for the greater good of the country, are moving out of a home that they do not want to leave will simply get 100% of the market value, plus home loss. Is there no room for the Secretary of State to be more generous and say to people, “You are doing something for the good of the country. Therefore, you should receive more than 100% of the market value”?

Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. We have said that we will go out to consultation. I fully accept that the position of his constituents is slightly different because the consultation, in the first
	instance, will relate to phase 1. It is not possible to consult on phase 2 until we have confirmed the route, but there will have to be a consultation on that. Given that he is the Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee, which has an important role in this area, no doubt his Committee will want to consider the matter.
	We will consider a range of compensation options, including a property bond, about which a number of Members have made representations.
	In building HS2, we need to ensure that we make the best use of British skills and workers. For Crossrail, 97% of the contracts have been won by British-based companies. From 2017, HS2 will create 19,000 engineering and construction jobs.

Andrew Percy: Supporting British jobs is essential. The Secretary of State will know that the finest rail in the world is produced in my constituency at the Scunthorpe steelworks. Will he assure me that he and his Department will do everything they can to ensure that Scunthorpe gets a cut of HS2 and that we see those benefits and jobs in our region?

Patrick McLoughlin: I can assure my hon. Friend that I want HS2 to be not dissimilar in this respect to Crossrail, which saw 97% of the business going to British companies. However, I am cautious about awarding contracts and making promises from the Dispatch Box. I am certainly a little more cautious than my hon. Friend was in asking me to do so.

Jim Cunningham: Will the Secretary of State meet a delegation from Coventry, as he suggested he would just before Christmas when we met him to discuss this issue?

Patrick McLoughlin: I hope the hon. Gentleman does not mind my pointing out that I met a delegation before Christmas. I have met one delegation and I am happy to have another meeting with the hon. Gentleman on the same issue. I recognise that the council has changed its position and I look forward to his changing his position as well.
	Today marks an important milestone in the progress of HS2. We must keep it to time and budget, and minimise the impact on residents, the environment and the landscape. We can do that and we need to do that because HS2 is an engine for growth: growth in jobs, growth in opportunities for business and growth in the global race. HS2 is a project for our generation. Now is the time to make it happen. I commend the Bill to the House.

Maria Eagle: Britain’s railways face a major capacity challenge in the years to come. That was why, when we were in government, Labour proposed Britain’s first new north-south rail line for more than 100 years. We remain convinced that the project is essential, as is completing the wider rebuilding of our rail network that began under the last Government to reverse the damage caused by decades of under-investment before 1997. Doing nothing is not an option because the existing network is fast reaching the limits of its capacity.
	Attempting to upgrade the existing main lines could deliver some, but nowhere near all, of the additional capacity that will be needed in the decades to come, and yet the cost would still be great, as would the disruption to passengers and freight. It would mean that we had learned nothing from the experience of carrying out a major upgrade of the west coast main line while attempting to keep it in use. After a decade of inconvenience and disruption, and almost £10 billion spent, the job was finally completed, but it delivered nowhere near the benefits that will come from a new north-south rail line. By building a new line that extends from London to Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds, we can relieve the pressure not just on the west coast, but on all three existing north-south main lines.
	It is vital that we are clear about why the scheme is necessary. Those of us from all parts of the House who support the new line need to be better at communicating why the investment is essential. The new north-south rail line is necessary to deliver a major increase in capacity on our rail network. That is why we cannot afford to delay the delivery of this project any longer.

Dan Byles: The hon. Lady has just said that the project is supported by Members from all parts of the House. She knows that I do not support it. What would she say to Labour councillors in my constituency who consistently call this a Conservative project and imply that it is not a Labour one?

Maria Eagle: I would not agree with that, except in the narrow sense that the project is being taken forward by a Conservative-led Government at present. The Secretary of State and I understand that, on both sides of the House, not everybody is in favour of the project. The genuine concerns that people have need to be heard and we will listen to them in detail.
	There will be significant benefits in addition to the new capacity that the line will offer. It will enable the introduction of much faster high-speed trains than can be deployed on the existing network. Journey times between our towns and cities will be cut, significantly in many cases. By building the line, we can help to rebalance the economy between London and the south-east and the rest of the country.
	It is worth understanding the extent of the reduction in journey times that will be achieved. The journey from London to Manchester that currently takes two hours and eight minutes will be cut by an hour to just one hour and eight minutes. Sheffield will be just one hour and nine minutes from London, compared with the current two hours and five minutes. Leeds to London will take just one hour and 22 minutes, which is a reduction from the current journey time of two hours and 12 minutes.
	Crucially, the journey times to destinations beyond the new line will be reduced. I am not sure that that is always understood. It will take just three hours and 38 minutes to get from London to Edinburgh, instead of the current four hours and 23 minutes. I look forward to being able to get home to Liverpool in a little over an hour and a half. It is not yet widely understood that high-speed trains will run off the new line on to existing track, serving communities across the country. It will be possible to get on a train in at least 28 of our towns and cities, including nine of the UK’s 10 biggest conurbations,
	and begin a journey that will use the new line. We need to communicate better the extent to which the whole country will benefit from this investment.
	The development of stations along the new line will provide major opportunities for regeneration and jobs, in addition to those created through the construction of the line itself. With fast inter-city services moved to the new rail line, capacity will be freed up on the existing main lines for new commuter services, further improving connectivity between our towns and cities further north, and generating opportunities to shift freight from road to rail. The line will deliver a credible alternative to short-haul flights and, therefore, the opportunity to reduce the emissions that contribute to climate change and free up capacity at airports in the south-east that could better be used to open new routes to emerging markets.
	We remain convinced that a new north-south rail line is needed. It is the right priority for investment and it is right that we make the decision to proceed.

Chris Kelly: The hon. Lady talks about the communities that will be served by the proposed high-speed rail line, but what about ticket prices? Will it not just serve the type of people who work in professional services, such as lawyers and accountants, who will be able to travel at high speed on company expenses rather than out of their own pockets?

Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman raises a legitimate concern, which was probably not helped by the Secretary of State’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), referring to HS2 as “a rich man’s toy”. Consideration of pricing arrangements will help to alleviate some of those concerns.

Khalid Mahmood: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Maria Eagle: I will give way once I have answered the hon. Member for Dudley South (Chris Kelly).
	The Opposition believe strongly that the north-south rail line will be a properly integrated part of our entire rail network. It should not be seen as separate from it. That also goes for pricing and ensuring that people can afford to use it.

Khalid Mahmood: Does my hon. Friend agree that this project will have a huge economic benefit to places such as Birmingham and the west midlands? In my constituency, we have a company from the United Arab Emirates that was originally going to settle in London. It provides 20 jobs in Birmingham, a figure that will go up to 80 jobs by the end of the year. The company is asking for better transport links, so that employees can commute as fast as possible. That will provide better jobs and training for our people in the midlands.

Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend makes a good point and I agree with him.

Brian Binley: Is not the truth of the matter that High Speed 2 will release capacity on the west coast main line? Has the debate not recognised the importance of freight, which is growing at more than 10% per year on rail? Does that not come into the discussions we are having today?

Maria Eagle: My goodness, I find myself in total agreement with the hon. Gentleman.
	Despite the importance of this project, there has been a real lack of drive from Ministers—I am not necessarily talking about the Secretary of State—in taking the decisions and delivering the action needed to make it a reality. The former Labour Transport Secretary, Lord Adonis, set up HS2 Ltd as long ago as 2009. By August of the same year, he had already confirmed plans for a new north-south rail line because he was a high-speed Secretary of State. Nothing has moved anywhere near as fast at the Department for Transport since he left, except the revolving door that has meant I am facing my third Transport Secretary since the election. I hope very much that the Government reshuffle that is rumoured to be on the cards does not deliver yet another change. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me on that.

Patrick McLoughlin: I hear what the hon. Lady says, but she should look at the average length of service of Labour Secretaries of State for Transport—they were also fairly rapid through those doors.

Maria Eagle: It is starting to worry me, when I contemplate my political future, that the average length across the parties of Secretaries of State for Transport appears to be somewhat on the short side. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, while his Government are still in office, and I can increase the average length of time served.

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Maria Eagle: I will make a little progress and then give way to the hon. Gentleman.
	The fact is that it is only now, four years on from Lord Adonis’s initial action, that the Government are introducing the legislation required to enable money to be spent in advance of construction. The legislation needed to actually begin construction is still nowhere in sight. The Secretary of State’s own departmental plan continues optimistically to claim that Royal Assent on the hybrid Bill will be secured in May 2015, yet in The Times at the weekend he could not be any more confident than to say, “I hope it will.” I know he does not want to admit it, but is it not the truth that there is absolutely no prospect of securing Parliament’s approval for phase 1 before the next election?
	Despite its inclusion in the Queen’s Speech, Ministers cannot even guarantee a Second Reading for the hybrid Bill in this Session, leaving just one year to secure its passage through both Houses. It took two years and one month to take the hybrid Bill for High Speed 1 through Parliament, and Crossrail took three years and five months. Neither of those schemes was on the scale, or came with as much controversy, as this new rail line. The Government’s inaction in the past three years requires them to rush the Bill at the end of this Parliament. The National Audit Office has warned that this compressed time scale poses even greater risks to the project:
	“Faster preparation for the bill may increase the extent of petitions to Parliament which may make it less likely that royal assent is granted by the planned date of May 2015. It may also divert the Department and HS2 Limited from focusing on the deliverability of the design.”
	With construction due to begin in January 2017, less than two years into the next Parliament, Ministers know full well that they are now cutting it very fine indeed.
	The fact that Royal Assent will no longer be achieved for phase 1 in this Parliament raises the question of why the new line was split into two Bills in the first place. We all know that that decision was taken to ensure that at all costs Conservative MPs did not have to go into the next election with pressure from their constituents to vote against it. The Government have failed to achieve that goal, and have completely unnecessarily opted for two hybrid Bills, when taking the proposals forward as one scheme would have provided greater certainty and ensured that there was no doubt about the Government’s commitment to the whole north-south line, as Ministers claim.

Angus MacNeil: Harvard Business Review says that there are about 40 mega-regions in the world that straddle national borders. They contain about 18% of the world’s population, 66% of its economic activity and 86% of the world’s patents. In these islands, we have two such mega-regions: south central England and the central belt of Scotland. Professor Richard Florida of the university of Toronto says that linking these regions helps global aggregate prosperity. When would the hon. Lady like to see high-speed links between these two UK mega-regions?

Maria Eagle: We cannot get any further north than Leeds and Manchester until we have got to Leeds and Manchester. That is a constraint, and I hear what the hon. Gentleman says.

Andrew Bridgen: The hon. Lady talks with great enthusiasm about HS2. Will she reassure the House that Her Majesty’s Opposition’s support for HS2 will continue up to and beyond the next general election? The support of the Government in this case is, I believe, rather like the support given by the rope to the hanged man.

Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is speaking in hope rather than expectation. I know his own personal concern about the scheme and I understand his point, but I can be clear with the House that Labour supports getting on with building this north-south line.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I am also grateful to her and the Secretary of State for being so understanding about the problems the scheme will cause to my constituents and my constituency. Does she agree that, in spending in excess of £50 billion minimum on such a scheme, one would expect it to connect effectively to HS1 and Heathrow? Is it not right to say that going ahead with this project and looking at the phase 1 route at this stage before Sir Howard Davies’s review into airport capacity is putting the cart before the horse?

Maria Eagle: It is fair to say that there are concerns about connectivity and what is happening at the southern end, but it is also fair to say that the Government of the day must decide. It is reasonable for the Opposition to raise issues, but, with projects over multiple Parliaments, we must accept, as an Opposition, that we are not quite
	as well resourced as the Government of the day to come up with well-thought-through alternatives. The Government of the day have to make the decisions, but it is fair enough for opponents and supporters of the scheme to raise issues, recognising that, if the project is ever to be delivered, the Government of the day must decide on the way forward.

Mark Lazarowicz: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Maria Eagle: I will do, and then I would like to make a little progress.

Mark Lazarowicz: I did not quite catch my hon. Friend’s answer to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who asked about taking the line north of Leeds and Manchester. Will she confirm that we would wish to see the high-speed services and line taken north of Leeds and Manchester in due course? It is not just a question of speed, however; it is also a question of capacity, because, as she pointed out, the construction of high-speed lines further south will free up capacity on existing lines, but that will lead to capacity problems if all the high-speed trains end up going on the existing lines further north.

Maria Eagle: I understand my hon. Friend’s point, and the one I made in response to the earlier intervention was simply that we had to get to Leeds and Manchester before we could go further. Work is going on—led by the Department, I think—looking at the prospects for further phases, if one wishes to put it that way, after we have got to Leeds and Manchester.
	The delays over the past three years are no surprise, given that the Department has been promising to publish a transport strategy ever since the election, but has yet again delayed it until later this year. The failure to deliver progress on this new railway line could not be a better example of what happens when one decides on a transport strategy towards the end of a Parliament, rather than at the beginning. It means major transport decisions—for example, how we connect the new rail line into Britain’s hub airport at Heathrow—are not being taken forward in an integrated way. That is entirely a consequence of ducking the big questions on aviation for the whole Parliament and of the Government’s decision, which we believe to be wrong, to tell the Airports Commission not to report until after the next election.
	It is not just the rapidly slipping timetable that raises alarm bells and worries those of us who support this project. The National Audit Office wrote:
	“We identified three areas of risk to the Department’s effective governance of the High Speed 2 programme:… Underdeveloped governance and programme management… Insufficient resources in the Department’s High Speed 2 team”—
	and
	“Inadequate stakeholder management”.
	The criticism that Ministers failed sufficiently to resource the team in the Department will be familiar to anyone who has followed the fiasco over the collapse of the Government’s rail franchising programme. The NAO has warned that there is
	“a high risk that it may have insufficient skilled staff in the areas of procurement, corporate finance, rail technical and programme management.”
	Yet again, the reckless way in which the Department was reorganised after the election and the scale of cuts to key staff have put a major project at risk.
	The Government have finally, belatedly, appointed a new director general for HS2 as well as a new senior management team, which is welcome news, but is it not extraordinary that, just as with the west coast main line fiasco, it took so long for a senior responsible owner to be identified for the project? No wonder the Major Projects Authority has rated the delivery of the new rail line as amber/red. That should have been a clear warning to Ministers to take its concerns seriously, not simply dismiss them as irrelevant.
	To be fair to the Secretary of State, there was one bit of good news in the otherwise highly critical report from the MPA. It found that
	“the Department has strengthened its working relationship with HM Treasury.”
	That is very sensible indeed, particularly in the light of the NAO’s concerns about the budget for the project. It has called the Department’s use of a precise estimate of £16.3 billion for the cost of phase 1 of the scheme as “unwise”, as I think we have discovered today. It said that an honest figure would be between £15.4 billion and £17.3 billion, so I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has today given updated figures. I am sure that he will continue to do so, as he has undertaken to do.
	The NAO was also unable to verify the Department’s claim that the £1.5 billion savings recommended by Infrastructure UK could be delivered. Work apparently only began on identifying those savings in September. The House needs to be told whether the savings have now been locked in. The NAO also raises doubts about the Department’s claim that phase 1 will result in reduced operating costs on the existing network of £3 billion over 60 years. This is on the assumption that fewer long-distance services are likely to run on the west coast main line, but because the Department has not set out any revised service patterns it is difficult to see how such a precise and neat rounded figure has been generated.
	The Government should also be clear that the £42.6 billion cost of completing the north-south line as far as Leeds and Manchester does not include the £7.5 billion cost of the trains to run on the line.
	The Secretary of State has made that clear today. These factors are an essential part of the project, and they ought to be included in the estimates in future.
	Worryingly, the National Audit Office also claims:
	“The Department has not included VAT in its cost estimates or affordability assessments”,
	and warns that
	“HS2 Limited will be liable for VAT at 20 per cent on almost all of its spending.”
	Ministers need to confirm that the Chancellor and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs have agreed that the VAT will be reclaimable. If that will not be the case, that should also be accurately reflected in the budget.
	The NAO also warns that, even with the additional £3 billion capital spending from 2015-16 that has been confirmed today, there is a risk that the project
	“may restrict the ability to fund other capital projects across government”.
	It goes on to warn:
	“We estimate that there could be a gap in affordability of £3.3 billion spread over the four years from 2017-18 to 2020-21, which are the peak spending years for phase one.”
	The Secretary of State will, I think, have negotiated something in that respect, but he must make it clear, when he can, that the settlement he has reached with the Chancellor—the details of which we might get tomorrow—has closed that funding gap in full. It would be unacceptable if the Department’s failure to plan the spending needed for this scheme were to result in any cuts or delays to the vital upgrading on the rest of the network. That includes the rolling programme of electrification and new inter-city trains, both of which have already been delayed or scaled back under this Government.
	Finally, on the budget for the scheme, there is already a creeping increase in spending from the allocation set for this Parliament in the 2010 spending review. The Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), has admitted to me in a parliamentary answer that the budget for the current spending period has been revised upwards from £773 million to around £900 million. That is worrying in the context of the legislation we are debating today, which will effectively give Ministers a blank cheque from Parliament to spend on the scheme. I am sure that the Secretary of State will keep Parliament fully apprised of where the money is going.
	In addition to the delays and the criticisms of the budget, serious concerns have also been expressed about HS2 Ltd. It was initially set up to advise Ministers on the route for the new north-south line, but the Government have expanded its role to include building support for the scheme and then delivering it, despite the fact that HS2 Ltd has faced criticism for the way in which it has engaged with communities along the route, with local authorities and with MPs. The fact is that it has not proved to be an effective advocate for the scheme.
	The NAO has issued a warning on this, too, saying:
	“The programme has a complicated governance structure. Thisis because the Department aims to preserve some independence for its development body, HS2 Limited, while also maintaining effective governance.”
	By divorcing the scheme from delivery of the investment in the existing rail network, there is a risk that we will not focus on the need to create a fully integrated single rail network. It makes no sense that Network Rail is, in effect, having to mirror some of the work of HS2 Ltd, including appointing staff of its own to work on the scheme and having to lobby HS2 Ltd to ensure that decisions are taken in a way that does not have a negative impact on the wider network.
	It is increasingly clear that a better option would be to transfer responsibility for the planning and delivery of the new north-south rail line to Network Rail. That would reduce duplication and cost while better enabling the integration of investment in the existing network and the new line. The hopelessly inadequate plans for connecting the new north-south line with HS1 are a good example. The focus of the debate on this issue has been on whether there would be any demand for services from the continent to go further north than London. We should surely not turn our backs on the opportunity to end unnecessary and environmentally damaging short-haul flights, but the real case for getting the connection right involves the opportunity to run the excellent Javelin
	trains that served us so well during the Olympics further up the country, instead of simply between the coast and the capital.

Angus MacNeil: According to the latest Government figures, Scotland has 8.4% of the UK population but provides 9.9% of the taxes. In effect, Scots will be paying for 9.9% of the new high-speed rail development, so it is disappointing that neither the Secretary of State nor the hon. Lady can give the House a date, an ambition, a target or a hope of when it might reach Scotland.

Maria Eagle: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s premise that there will be no benefit to Scotland before the high-speed rail line gets there at some time in the future. It is clear that it will benefit from the project.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the hon. Lady agree that, if we are going to spend this large amount of money on HS2, we should get the maximum benefit from it? At the moment, it is planned to connect HS2 with HS1 only by a rather tortuous single-rail route, but there is a better, double-rail solution available. Would it not make more sense to fully integrate HS1 with HS2?

Maria Eagle: I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. Gentleman’s point. It makes no sense to me at all that passengers from the south-east should have to change trains in north London to reach towns and cities in the midlands, the north and up to Scotland. We do not see this connection as an optional extra that can be delivered in a patch-and-mend way; it needs to be re-thought.

Frank Dobson: Is my hon. Friend aware that HS2 is saying that it wants to use the north London line for the link because
	“it is assessed to have less construction risk than a tunnel”?
	Is she aware that the man from Bechtel who masterminded the successful channel tunnel link and the refurbishment of St Pancras decided to do a double-bore tunnel from Barking to St Pancras because is was “less risky” to have such a tunnel than to use the north London line. Who would my hon. Friend trust on that?

Maria Eagle: I would undoubtedly trust my right hon. Friend—there is absolutely no doubt about that. The points made by both the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and my right hon. Friend illustrate the concern and controversy that remain about this issue. I believe that a solution should be devised that can minimise the impact on communities in Camden while ensuring that we do not miss a perfect opportunity to redevelop Euston in the right way for the long term. I believe that the Government should keep looking at that.

Cheryl Gillan: I am really grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, because our speeches are being restricted to only six minutes in the main debate, so it will be hard to say everything that has built up over four years in those six minutes. From what she is saying, am I right to understand that her party might look at a different route for HS2, as the very point she is making about
	connectivity to HS1 and to Heathrow leans towards another route that was originally in the set of proposals—one that was not chosen by this Government?

Maria Eagle: I do not think it fair to assume that if I had the Secretary of State’s role after the next general election, I would tear everything up. I have made it clear that when there are projects that run across Parliaments, it is important to co-operate and to understand that decisions have to be made. We will, however, have to see where we are at by the time we get to the next election. I would certainly want to take every opportunity to make sure that the nation gets the best possible outcome from the money spent. As I say, we shall have to see where we are at that time. I am not interested in delaying going forward with what I believe to be a tremendously important scheme.
	The Government must also be clear, following the successful judicial review, about how they intend to change the compensation scheme for households affected by the building of the line. The judge found that the consultation process was unfair, that not enough information had been provided and that the criteria for compensation options were not adequately explained. This failure has caused unnecessary added stress to those affected by the scheme, during what is obviously a very difficult time for them and their families.
	It is simply not possible to take forward a project of national importance on this scale without causing a significant impact on some communities and on some people’s lives, but the obligation on all of us is to do what we can to mitigate against that impact and to act fairly in terms of compensating people for the loss of property and value that they suffer. Ministers must now act quickly to bring forward a new, fair scheme and ensure that it is communicated clearly and transparently.

Andrea Leadsom: Do the Opposition therefore support the concept of a property bond that would try to improve on the blight that is experienced by so many people?

Maria Eagle: I am willing to support anything that can properly, fairly and reasonably compensate people in a way that still meets the obligation to be reasonable with taxpayers’ money. I would thus be happy to look at the details of the scheme, as I think the Secretary of State has said he is, too. I think we have a particular obligation to treat those affected as fairly as we possibly can and within as speedy a time scale as possible.

Clive Betts: I would like to mention a point raised with the Secretary of State a while ago. Asking people to make a sacrifice for the good of the country—that is effectively what we are asking the people whose homes are to be demolished to do— and saying to them, “This is the value of your property now and you can have 10% extra for the loss of your home” is really not adequate compensation. We should be able to do a bit better than that for people who are being forced to move home through no fault of their own and no choice of their own.

Maria Eagle: That is an important point. Such action could, indeed, lead to other benefits, if it meant that matters were settled earlier than they would otherwise have been. I believe that some European
	countries do as my hon. Friend suggests, and end up building their lines rather more quickly than we seem to manage to.
	Ministers must now engage in a debate about the eventual cost of using the new north-south line, because that goes to the heart of the question of what kind of railway we believe in. There have been fears about the issue ever since the former Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), started talking about rich men’s toys.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I think it important to put on record the fact that the phrase “a rich man’s toy” was presented to my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), who is now Secretary of State for Defence. He did not demur, but it is not a phrase that he generated. I happen to have been a member of the Transport Committee at the time. I think it important for us to clear this matter up before the hon. Lady starts accusing my right hon. Friend of making that comment.

Maria Eagle: I think every Member of Parliament realises, given the present state of journalism in this country, that if a phrase is presented to one and one does not demur, it is quite legitimate to say that that is what one agrees with. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point.
	I hope that Ministers will agree with Labour’s vision of a new railway line that is fully integrated with the existing network, and whose fares are fully regulated. That is the line for which we will all be paying, and its use must therefore be affordable for many people, not just for a few at the richer end of society.
	It is disappointing that Ministers have so far shown little interest in ensuring that this significant investment delivers real opportunities, especially for our young people. Labour has made it clear that every £1 billion of investment in the scheme should deliver 1,000 apprenticeships, and I hope that the Government will make the same commitment to apprenticeships and to our young people. Ministers must learn the lessons of the Thameslink procurement. Those trains are now to be built in Germany. It is perfectly possible, within EU rules, to ensure that public investment delivers jobs and apprenticeships where they are desperately needed, here in Britain. Every other EU country manages to do the equivalent through its own train procurement. The new line must deliver British jobs and growth, not only after its completion but during its construction, and that must include the manufacturing of the trains.
	It was a Labour Government who first set out the ambition for a new high-speed north-south railway line to address the capacity issue on our rail network while also cutting journey times between our towns and cities, and the case for making this scheme a reality remains strong. Indeed, it is all the more necessary at a time when the Government’s economic failure has meant a failure to deliver the growth that the country so desperately needs. The progress made over the last three years, since Ministers inherited the project, has been disappointing, but it retains cross-party support. We will support the Bill today, but we urge the Government to get on with the hybrid Bill as soon as possible. We want to see the
	enthusiasm and commitment from Ministers that is necessary to make a major project on this scale become a reality.

Mr Speaker: I must now announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day. On the motion relating to the town and country planning regulations, the Ayes were 281 and the Noes were 185, so the Question was agreed to.
	[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. In view of the fact that more than 30 Back Benchers wish to speak in the debate, I have imposed a six-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, with immediate effect.

Cheryl Gillan: I beg to move an amendment:
	That this House declines to give a second reading to a Bill which authorises preparatory expenditure on a railway without specifying further detail of the route and a limit on expenditure.
	Let me begin by paying tribute to all the constituents and volunteers who have worked tirelessly to protect our interests in the Chilterns. HS2 Action Alliance, 51m, Stop HS2, our Conservative councillors and all the conservation groups have worked so hard and deserve all our thanks and congratulations.
	There is no doubt that if HS2 goes ahead, Chesham and Amersham and the Chilterns will be badly affected. Indeed, I think that my constituents will be paying twice: once through their taxes, and once through the disruption and blight that they are suffering.
	We have heard that this project was dreamt up under the last Labour Government, and I am glad that the shadow Secretary of State took responsibility for it. The mistake we made was adopting it without asking the proper questions, and now, after three Secretaries of State in as many years, we have a £50 billion project—so we heard today—not connected to any airport or other transport system such as HS1, and divided into two phases with no guarantee that the northern route will be built even in my lifetime.

Graham Stringer: The right hon. Lady is an excellent constituency MP and the route north of Birmingham includes Manchester airport, so, as she was once a candidate who aspired to represent Manchester, does she think she would have a different position on this matter now if she had won that election?

Cheryl Gillan: Ah, but fortunately I was elected to represent Chesham and Amersham, so I do not have to answer that hypothetical question.
	This project is also almost 30 years out of date. Thirty years ago I might have been supporting it, but people are now looking to save costs in business by using teleconferencing and superfast broadband, and they are trying to reduce the amount of travelling their employees do. If we are in a global race, I would be much happier if we were in fact connecting effectively to Heathrow and HS1, because at the moment we do not even seem to be able to repair our existing roads and railways, and we cannot use the M25 without being
	stuck in a traffic jam. Surely we should be looking at our infrastructure and maximising its potential before building a bright, new, shiny railway?
	Last week the New Economics Foundation did an excellent piece of work: it published a report examining a variety of projects across the country that could be procured for the same sum of £33 billion. They included some very valuable improvements for northern cities, active transport systems and much more superfast fibre-optic broadband, which we need to deliver competitiveness for this country.
	I may have been a nimby—when I started off, I was a nimby—but I have studied this project and I am convinced that it is the wrong project. I am not alone in questioning HS2. We have heard what the National Audit Office has said. Its report was damning. It highlighted that the Department had failed to outline clear strategic objectives, had made errors in calculating the cost-benefit ratio and is not sufficiently engaged with stakeholders, and it casts serious doubt over the capability of HS2 Ltd even to deliver this programme alongside the other demands on the Department.
	The judicial review has resulted in a judgment that was shaming of the Department, finding that its consultation on compensation was so unfair as to be unlawful. The Major Projects Authority’s report—which the Government continue to refuse to publish in detail, even though the Information Commissioner says it is in the public interest for them to do so—indicates that this project is in the red-amber category, denoting a very high risk of its failing to be delivered on time or on budget.

Brian Binley: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Cheryl Gillan: Yes, as I think I get extra time if I do.

Brian Binley: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that while the NAO report did, indeed, make those criticisms, it also said that at the end of the day there would be a return of 2.5:1 on this project, and does she not recognise the importance of that to the well-being of future generations?

Cheryl Gillan: That is a nice try, but the cost of this project is going up minute-by-minute, so I doubt that that ratio is accurate even as I stand here today.
	I also have to say that the Department and HS2 Ltd have already failed on other bases: engineering calculations have been wrong, and the costs of alterations to Euston were inaccurate. That, along with public failures such as the west coast main line franchise debacle, must prompt this question: do the Department or HS2 have the leadership capability or competence to deliver the largest infrastructure project in the UK in living memory?
	If the project gets the green light, however—as I fear it will, judging by the number of Members present—I want to make two particular points to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. On the current consultation—I use that term loosely—by HS2 Ltd on the draft environmental statement, whatever the failings of the process, at the moment one thing is clear: the area of outstanding natural beauty, which belongs to everybody in this country, is going to be irreversibly damaged. My first request to the Secretary of State is that if this project does go ahead, can we have the best possible mitigation in the Chilterns in order to protect our precious, and highly endangered, environment to
	the utmost level? A fully bored tunnel under the whole of the AONB would offer that protection, and I urge the Secretary of State to adopt that option.
	My second request has I think been answered partly, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State accepted in his opening speech that he will look more seriously at, and perhaps even deliver, the property bond. The compensation scheme has been totally inadequate to date, and the engagement of officials and Ministers often the dialogue of the deaf, frankly. The Bill does not include specific undertakings on compensation that would fulfil the Prime Minister’s assurance to me that it would be timely and generous to those people adversely affected. So I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will look at the property bond put forward by my constituent, Hilary Wharf, who is to be commended for her work in this area, and that the compensation system introduced is rapid, fair and does not make my constituents feel that the Government are wriggling to avoid paying them a proper price for their properties.
	As you know, Mr Speaker, there are several Members of Parliament whose constituencies are affected by HS2 who are unable to speak today, so I want to say a few words on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), who has worked tirelessly to put forward the interests of his constituents. He asked me to point out today that places such as Wendover Dean and the Hawkslade and Walton Court areas of Aylesbury are among the worst affected of any along the phase 1 route. He also asked me to highlight the need for better mitigation—a request that fits in with my own request for a fully bored tunnel. I know that you, Mr Speaker, have regularly communicated your constituents’ overwhelming opposition to this project and, like me, have received thousands of letters and have similar experiences of the failure of the exceptional hardship fund to offer adequate compensation to constituents. Likewise, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) is very worried about the Denham viaduct and the Colne Valley site of special scientific interest.
	Why do we need a paving Bill? There was no paving Bill for the channel tunnel rail link, Crossrail or the Olympics. We could continue to spend money as we have already, without this Bill. Once it is passed, as it undoubtedly will be, the Government can claim that HS2 is backed by the will of Parliament. Frankly, all colleagues should be concerned about proceeding with this project. The Bill is a blank cheque, handed over before Parliament is in full possession of the facts, and to a Department that is having a hard job convincing people that the project is fit for purpose. On that basis, and because this is the first time we have even had a vote on HS2, it is with a very heavy heart that I say I cannot support the Government. I hope that colleagues in the House today will support my reasoned amendment and vote against the Bill. At this stage, I have no intention of calling votes on any other part of the proceedings, but I will on the amendment and on Second Reading.

Louise Ellman: I am pleased to support this legislation today, which is a significant step in securing High Speed 2. It is important to recognise that HS2 is about having a vision for the
	future. It is about making a much-needed step change in capacity on our railways. It is about meeting growing demand for rail, addressing congestion on our roads and motorways, and connecting major cities not just across this country and the UK, but potentially across Europe as well. It has the potential to rebalance our economy.
	However, it is very important that progress on High Speed 2 does not go ahead in isolation from considering the importance of continuing to invest in the existing classic line. Existing improvements such as the northern hub and the electrification programmes must continue and be stepped up. Assurance must be given that there will be proper access to high-speed rail, and that means that more attention needs to be given to the siting of the stations and connections to them. It is important that no local services be reduced as a consequence of building the high-speed rail line, and it is extremely important that the potential of developing the freed existing lines for both freight and passengers be addressed. That means that more work needs to take place, perhaps through local authorities and local enterprise partnerships working together, to make sure that proper plans are worked out so that the existing lines freed when high-speed rail comes to fruition will be able to be used to the maximum for freight and for passengers.
	It is also crucial that the potential for economic development and rebalancing the economy is achieved. That means that we must not make any assumptions that simply building a high-speed line will automatically bring those economic benefits. Work has to be done, again by the LEPs, with the local authorities and with Government support, to develop economic strategies, regionally as well as nationally, to support business in taking advantage of those opportunities. I was very interested to read the results of studies instigated by local authorities. The Core Cities study put forward by major cities in our country identified about 400,000 new jobs that would come as a result of high-speed rail, and Centro’s report, looking specifically at the west midlands area, identified about 22,000 jobs that would come. I emphasise that none of those jobs will come automatically; we need to give attention to economic strategies and support for business to make sure that those opportunities come to fruition.
	A number of important issues must be addressed. Concern remains that under the Bill as proposed, high-speed rail may not go beyond Birmingham. We have heard assurances from Ministers but we need rather more than that; we need a commitment in the Bill to make sure that HS2 is not simply between London and Birmingham, and that the rail scheme progresses to Leeds, Manchester and beyond. The time scale is a very long one, even on the current proposals of 2026 to Birmingham and 2033 to Leeds, to Manchester and to other areas.

Patrick McLoughlin: I completely agree with the hon. Lady’s point. I wonder, Mr Speaker whether I might use this intervention to clarify something I said earlier, as I am afraid I gave the wrong figure. I said that the contingency was £12.7 billion but it is actually £14.4 billion, so it is larger than I said. I just wanted to take this opportunity, with your permission and that of the hon. Lady, to put the figure right.

Mr Speaker: The House is grateful.

Louise Ellman: I thank the Secretary of State for clarifying that situation.
	The consultation, which has not yet taken place across the whole of the proposed line, must be a very real one. A number of hon. Members have already told us of their local concerns. There are problems in relation to London and, in particular, the development around Euston station, which is an important and difficult issue. Hon. Members have also raised issues in the House relating to access to Stoke-on-Trent. The proposals for Liverpool are not good enough and need improvement. Important environmental issues need addressing, and the question of compensation has been raised in the House this afternoon. All those issues are vital and must be addressed in a reasonable way. It is important for them to be resolved successfully because that will help to deliver a successful HS2—high-speed rail that is about much-needed capacity, connectivity and economic progress for the future, throughout this country and beyond.

Iain Stewart: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), the Chairman of the Transport Committee. I have had the privilege of serving on the Committee for more than three years now. I have studied this subject not only through my Committee work, but through other personal research and I do not think I have studied any subject in more depth. I will try to put concisely my observations on the project in the next few minutes.
	I support the principle of high-speed rail. I confess that I do not believe this route is the optimal one, and I have specific concerns and suggestions to make about it, but I support the Bill. I fear the opportunity cost of not proceeding with this project far outweighs the risk and costs of going ahead. I shall say a little about why I have reached that conclusion.
	The point has been well made that many parts of our rail network are close to capacity. Rail passenger use and rail freight use have increased sharply in recent years and any reasonable projection shows that they will continue to rise in future decades. Simply taking into account the increased population of the country, particularly in areas such as mine, it is clear that there will be continued increased demand on transport services and rail in particular. Rail usage increased even in the recession from 2008 onwards.
	It is often said that we should invest in the classic network rather than HS2. I would not support HS2 if it was at the expense of investment in the classic network, but there is substantial investment in that network. There is the electrification of the Great Western and midland main lines, as well as new rolling stock and junction improvements on the west coast main line. The Government have sensibly committed to reopening the east-west rail line from Milton Keynes to Oxford and Aylesbury. Those are just a few of the projects.
	Essential and welcome as the upgrades are, they will not be enough for the long term. I have come to the conclusion from all my research, and from looking at all the projects and models that have been proposed, that we need to build a new north-south strategic rail line.

Andrea Leadsom: Does my hon. Friend think, like my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), that this is a matter of needing more capacity? If so, why are we going for a very expensive system like high-speed rail, with its exponentially enormous engineering costs?

Iain Stewart: My research has shown that if we are committing to build a new railway line, the cost of building a fast one is not significantly more than building a conventional one. The majority of the costs come in building the cuttings, the bridges and all the other necessary infrastructure. Making a faster one costs a little more, but not a huge amount more.
	If we merely expanded capacity on the west coast or east coast line, we would have to do that at the same time as running existing services. Anyone who used the west coast main line during the previous upgrade will say what an absolute nightmare that is. Such an approach would not solve the problem of competing demands for use on the existing line between commuter services, freight services, non-stop inter-city services and stopping services. We cannot continually squeeze more and more capacity out of one line, as we will reach capacity and will be overly reliant on that line. That is why I accept the case for a new high-speed line.
	I accept that the project is controversial and completely understand the fears of residents along the proposed line of route. There are justifiable concerns about disturbing the peace and quiet of the countryside, but I urge right hon. and hon. Members to look at what happened during the construction and planning of High Speed 1. The same concerns were raised, but since the line has opened there have been very few, if any, complaints.

Paul Beresford: I can certainly back up my hon. Friend’s point. I was on the Committee that considered the Bill and the line was going through the garden of England, and there was talk of devastation and horrendous things. Some of the complaints were justified, but many proved to be empty. It has worked.

Iain Stewart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I took the opportunity to visit the route of High Speed 1 and saw the noise mitigation measures that had been put in place. The noise of the trains is not much more audible than that of an A road or other minor piece of infrastructure.

Alec Shelbrooke: I was on that trip with my hon. Friend and a notable fact given to us by Kent county council was that Maidstone is now lobbying to have the line go through the station, whereas it was vehemently opposed to that originally.

Iain Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
	To those who voice concern about visual intrusion on areas of outstanding natural beauty, I simply make the point that railway infrastructure need not be ugly—it need not be concrete blocks. Look at some of the fantastic pieces of railway engineering and architecture we have: the Forth bridge, the Glenfinnan viaduct, Brunel’s bridges and tunnels—they have enhanced the landscape. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to make HS2 into an opportunity to showcase the
	best of British design and engineering, with bridges, viaducts and other infrastructure that show off and augment our landscape.
	In the couple of minutes remaining, I will highlight five specific concerns and make some suggestions. The first is about the rolling stock for the line and making sure it is compatible with the classic network, particularly on the Anglo-Scottish services. At present, we have tilting trains that allow conventional lines to be used at high speed, but if high-speed trains cannot tilt, journey times on the classic network will be lengthened to an extent that might offset the time gains on the high-speed line. I urge the Minister to consider that.
	The second concern, justifiably felt by people in Buckinghamshire, is that the line goes straight through the county with no stop. The high-speed line will intersect with the new east-west line in Buckinghamshire. I ask that, when the scheme is considered in full—the Y-network and connection to the channel tunnel—the case will be reassessed for an intermediate stop at Claydon junction. I would suggest calling it “Milton Keynes Parkway”, but others may have different ideas. That would enable people in the area to access the lines, which I believe would augment the business case.
	Only seconds remain, so I will very quickly highlight the point, which has already been well made, about properly connecting airports, High Speed 1 and the channel tunnel. I do not think the plans are optimal. Finally, I urge my right hon. Friend to look at capacity at Euston, where the tube network is already pretty crowded. I believe we need to consider Crossrail 2, so I was delighted when the Chancellor floated that possibility in his statement earlier today. Notwithstanding those concerns, I support the Bill.

Frank Dobson: HS2 will unleash havoc on Euston, Primrose Hill and Camden Town in my constituency. It will demolish the homes of about 500 people and blight the homes of at least another 1,000. One local park will disappear for ever; another will be a building site for 10 years or more. The project will prevent the much-needed reconstruction of Euston station, which was intended to provide around 1,000 new flats for local people. It has already delayed plans to rebuild a local convent school. The link to HS1 will subject Primrose Hill and Camden Town to large-scale engineering works, mainly above ground level. Local shops and restaurants will be put out of business; quiet back streets are to become official routes for construction traffic. Yet the compensation and mitigation regime intended for our area is inferior to what has been promised outside London. That cannot be right.
	When HS2 was given the go-ahead, we were told, first, that phase 1 would cost £17 billion; secondly, that it would be completed by 2026; and thirdly, that no one would suffer a significant loss. HS2 is backtracking on all three. For a start, as has been pointed out, £17 billion will not provide a working railway, because it does not include the cost of the trains, estimated to be £2 billion—it will be a train-free zone. Nor does it include the cost of the works at Euston needed to allow the already overcrowded tube and local roads to cope with additional passengers and traffic—that is probably another £2 billion. VAT at 20% will come to about £3 billion. The original
	estimate for HS2 also included £1.4 billion for a spur to Heathrow. The spur has been dropped, but it is not at all clear where the £1.4 billion has gone.

Cheryl Gillan: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that because we do not have the full environmental statement—we have only a draft—we do not know the full cost of any environmental mitigation that may be needed along the route?

Frank Dobson: The right hon. Lady is absolutely right. Recently, HS2 Ltd has been forced to confess that it underestimated the cost of the works at Euston by no less than 40%. We have been asked to write a blank cheque for people who underestimate costs by 40%. On top of that, HS2 Ltd admits that it has to rebuild or strengthen cuttings, embankments and bridges on the north London line and the main line. Originally, it denied that that would be necessary, so it did not provide for it in the initial costings. I remind Members that those costs have soared while HS2 is still at a desk-study stage. God knows what will happen when people get round to practical work on the site.

Barry Sheerman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week, the New Economics Foundation produced the third independent evaluation of the project, saying that there was real doubt about its viability and what it would do for northern cities?

Frank Dobson: I cannot possibly disagree with my hon. Friend. In theory, a million years ago, I got a degree in economics, and I have reached the stage where I can usually work out when someone is talking drivel. When I heard the Government’s cost estimates, I think I understood they were talking drivel.
	Does anyone in the House really believe that the line will be completed by 2026? I was going to offer a bet against completion by then, but I suspect that the final completion date is so far in the future that I am unlikely to be around to collect my winnings, which brings me to compensation and mitigation.
	At present, HS2 Ltd intends that people and businesses in our area should receive lower compensation, lower standards of protection and inferior mitigation measures. There is no excuse for that treatment of a settled residential and business community. Local council tenants, right-to-buy leaseholders, private tenants, leaseholders and owner-occupiers should be no worse off as a result of the project, which is being carried out, apparently, in the national interest. They must be found new homes that meet their needs, and without any detriment to the terms and conditions of their tenure.
	The same approach should apply to businesses. Restaurants and small shops in Drummond street depend on passing trade to Euston station for up to 70% of their business, but HS2 Ltd proposes that for 10 years, they should be cut off from the station by a barrier that will be higher than the Berlin wall. What is worse, it is proposed that they would not receive any compensation at all. May I tell Government Members, who always say that they are speaking up on behalf of small businesses, that if they do not do something to prevent that wickedness, they will let down some small businesses? The same non-compensation rules will apply in Camden Town.
	The Government must reconsider the project. Is it really the best use of a scarce £17 billion if we want to improve our creaking transport system? Even if it is, would not the London terminus be better sited at Old Oak Common which, unlike Euston, is on the Heathrow Express route and will be on Crossrail? It would be welcome there, and studies show that if people got off Crossrail at Old Oak Common, only 4% of London underground stations would take longer to reach than if they went to Euston. The stations that would take longer to reach are Euston Square, Regent’s Park, Mornington Crescent and King’s Cross St Pancras, so there is no disadvantage. If this goes ahead, most sensible travellers will get off at Old Oak Common anyway, whatever anybody says.
	Finally, if it is decided to go ahead, I hope there will be agreement across the Chamber that there should be a special made-to-measure compensation and mitigation scheme for the whole length of HS2 and all the residents and businesses affected by it. It should be as generous as the Secretary of State promised, and I do not doubt the integrity of the Secretary of State.
	I also have to say this: in all the years that I have dealt with public and private bodies, I have never come across an outfit as stupid, incompetent and incapable of even delivering letters as the people at present running HS2, and if I were in favour of the project, I would get someone else to do it.

Alan Reid: I very much welcome the Bill. It is an important stage in implementing a promise from the Liberal Democrat manifesto. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power, subject to the approval of the Treasury, to incur expenditure in preparation for the high-speed rail network. The language used in the Bill is open-ended because it states that this expenditure must include at least rail lines connecting London, Birmingham, the east midlands, Sheffield, Leeds and Manchester, and which connect with the existing rail network. The “at least” phrase means that the HS2 expenditure being approved under the Bill is not limited to the cities and regions mentioned, but prepares the way for further extension of HS2 in the future.
	This is in line with the Government’s wish to work with the Scottish Government on this issue, with the aim of having a third phase to connect the high-speed link on from Manchester to Glasgow and Edinburgh. By enhancing connectivity between Britain’s large cities, HS2 will make investment in the regions outside London and the south-east far more attractive. This is vital if we are to help rebalance the UK economy and increase jobs and growth. HS2 will underpin the delivery of at least 100,000 jobs, and hopefully far more.
	It is estimated that HS2 will transfer approximately 9 million journeys from road to rail and 4.5 million from air to rail. This will ease road congestion and reduce some of the pressure on our airports, allowing our economy to grow in an environmentally friendly manner. Passenger demand is expected to grow and if we do nothing, it is anticipated that the west coast main line will reach full capacity during the next 15 years. High-speed rail provides the best possible option to cope with ever-rising passenger demand and to ensure that we have sufficient future capacity to satisfy the needs of the UK economy.
	HS2 will also help to free up capacity on the existing rail network, in particular the west coast main line. As well as improving services for passengers, it will free up capacity for more freight on the railways. HS2 will radically shorten journey times between London, the midlands and the north of England and Scotland. For example, it will shorten the journey time between London and Edinburgh by 45 minutes. That is after phase 2 is completed and without waiting for phase 3.

Barry Sheerman: Has the hon. Gentleman seen some of the research that shows that rather than strengthening the provincial cities, HS2 will reinforce the power and influence of London and do the absolute opposite of what most people thought it would do?

Alan Reid: I have seen some of that analysis, but I disagree with it. All the past experience is that by connecting cities, we bring jobs and growth to both ends of the network. Our Victorian predecessors had great vision. No doubt there were people in those days who said, “This will all be a waste of money. Rail will never take off”, but experience shows that when we connect up people and cities, we create more jobs at both ends of the network.
	It is important to point out to the Scottish National party, whose Members have departed and have not bothered to stay for the full debate, that it does not matter where the railway line starts—whether at the London end or the Scotland end. The journey time cut by each mile of track is the same, no matter which end one starts from. Were the SNP’s plans for the referendum to come to fruition and Scotland and England became separate countries, I cannot see a UK Government building the line any further than Manchester, whereas if Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom, I am confident that we will, in time, see high-speed rail all the way from London to Glasgow and Edinburgh.
	It is important to point out that other countries, such as Germany, Japan and China, have already invested heavily in high-speed rail and have several rail connections that are much faster than ours. The United States also has plans to develop a high-speed rail network. If we do not go ahead with HS2, there is a great danger that the UK will fall behind our international competitors. We must make plans to meet future passenger demand, provide more capacity and cut train journey times for millions of passengers. The railway lines between our major cities are overcrowded and far slower than they should be.
	I believe that the case for HS2 is clear and overwhelming. It will bring much economic development, delivered in an environmentally sustainable manner. The Bill is an important step towards delivering a vital high-speed rail network and I urge the House to support it tonight.

Roger Godsiff: Two acts of monumental folly have been imposed on the railway industry over the past 50 years. The first, back in 1963, was the Beeching report, which led to the butchering of lines linking communities across the UK. Indeed, one consequence of Beeching is highly relevant to today’s debate, because one of the lines he closed was the Great Central line, which ran from London to Sheffield and Manchester. Were it still in operation, I
	suggest that we would be debating whether to spend money upgrading it, rather than committing £17 billion, rising to £32 billion, on High Speed 2, for which the infrastructure work will not even begin until 2017.
	The second act of monumental folly, of course, was the decision in the 1990s to privatise the railways, something that even Mrs Thatcher steered clear of. She had the good sense to realise that it is not possible to privatise a railway system and divorce the operating companies from the infrastructure. As we all know, privatisation has brought no benefit whatsoever for the consumer. The subsidies now paid to train operating companies are double what they were pro rata when British Rail ceased to exist. The Secretary of State was a little reluctant to answer when asked what the subsidy is. Well, I will help him out: £2.6 billion a year is spent subsidising a railway system that is not fit for purpose.
	I would have hoped that the Secretary of State and his colleagues would not bring to the Chamber today something that I believe will be yet another act of folly imposed on the railway industry, particularly in view of all the information that has come out over the past two years as the economic case for HS2 has unravelled. Regrettably, that appears not to be the case.
	Reference has already been made to the National Audit Office report, but the comments made in it should be repeated again and again, not least the fact that it estimates that there is already a £3.3 billion funding shortfall, a figure that has just been glossed over as far as London is concerned, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) said. Indeed, the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee has said that the Government’s business case is “farcical” and
	“clearly not up to scratch”.
	Furthermore, she said that some of the Department’s assumptions were “ludicrous”. I am talking about the National Audit Office and the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, yet we have been told again and again today that the figures do stack up.

Barry Sheerman: Has my hon. Friend looked at the really interesting French research showing the deleterious effects on the provincial cities of France as the French rapid trains were introduced? It drove those cities into penury.

Roger Godsiff: I have. As my hon. Friend said earlier, there is a report that makes just that point—that such projects do not spread wealth out, but quite the contrary.

David Mowat: The hon. Gentleman makes the point, as I understand it, that infrastructure spending does not spread wealth out. In that case, would he like to make the north really prosperous by closing the M1 and the M6?

Roger Godsiff: We are where we are. I do not wish to have an argument about whether the building of the M1 and M6 was folly. What is folly is the privatised section of the M6, which is uneconomic and will soon go bust. It was supported by the Conservatives—“Let’s bring private capital into our motorways”. It is part of the motorway that is never used and will soon either go bust or have to come to the Secretary of State and ask for a handout.

David Mowat: The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way a third time. I make the point again: the logic of his argument is that the north would be richer if the M1, the M6 and perhaps the existing west coast main line were all closed. That is ridiculous.

Roger Godsiff: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not understand the point that he is trying to make.
	As I said, we need to look at the economic case. The National Audit Office report and other reports have said that the project is already spiralling out of control. Already, figures that we were told about a year or so ago just do not stack up and people who have a vested interest in pushing the project ahead seem to be plucking figures out of the sky to suit whatever argument they are making. At the end of the day, the British taxpayer will have to pick up the tab if it goes wrong.
	At this time of austerity and cutbacks across a range of services, the idea of reducing the time that business men take to travel from Birmingham or Manchester to London by 30 minutes and one hour respectively is absolutely farcical. It seems completely to disregard the fact that business men tend to work on trains nowadays. They use computers and mobile phones. Not one single, solitary business man in Birmingham has said to me, “Unless the project goes ahead and I can travel from Birmingham to London 30 minutes quicker, my business is going to suffer and be in danger.”

Mark Garnier: I will come straight back to the hon. Gentleman on that point. I have met a lot of business people in Birmingham who are arguing strongly for HS2. A lot of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents are definitely asking for it.

Roger Godsiff: I say again that not one business man has come to me to make the argument.
	The project is absolutely desperate. Secretaries of State always like to leave a legacy, and I understand that. However, I believe that High Speed 2 will not be a legacy. It is a vanity project, and if it goes ahead it could turn into a white elephant.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Interventions have taken up a lot of time, so I am having to reduce the time limit to five minutes, and might have to reduce it again to get everyone in—[Interruption.] If you want to moan, please do so, Mr Gummer. The point is that everyone wants to speak. If you are suggesting that I knock somebody off the list, please tell me.

Jessica Lee: The eastern side of my constituency, in the heart of the east midlands, borders the proposed site for the east midlands hub. I share that border with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), and I assure the House that as time goes on we will be working together on issues arising from the proposed site.
	At this preliminary stage in the proposals for HS2, I speak in support of the project. That broadly reflects the representations made to me by businesses and constituents, although, it has to be said, not universally. On the current plans, the route clips the eastern edge of
	Long Eaton, and a few roads in the town will not survive. I will deal with the concerns of its residents later. I also have very many constituents who welcome and support these plans. They are right to do so. Put simply, the proposals offer a chance for investment and regeneration on a vast scale in our midlands and northern towns and cities. In Erewash we have a proud history of jobs, businesses and apprenticeships in the railways sector. My late maternal grandfather worked his entire life on the railways. This project brings new opportunities to continue that historical link. The possibility of being a neighbouring town to the east midlands hub has to bring much more with it.
	I was recently privileged to bring the Minister of State on a visit to Long Eaton to show him the proposed route. I was very grateful for his generous use of his time to visit Erewash. I am sure he agrees that the opportunities for my constituency in terms of jobs and investment would be second to none. In addition, my right hon. Friend will have noted the road infrastructure in Long Eaton. I hope he agrees that this scheme could bring with it an opportunity to improve the road infrastructure for the town, because as it stands the roads would struggle to manage the new traffic levels.
	As I said, some businesses and homes in Erewash would be affected by the proposed route. Of course, it is impossible for any of us to imagine someone’s shock and worry on hearing the news that their home may not survive the construction of the project. However, like many other constituency MPs, I take my responsibilities to assist such residents extremely seriously. I have called a meeting and have been helping on a personal, individual basis every constituent affected by dealing with their correspondence and any application they wish to make under the hardship fund.
	I bring to my right hon. Friend’s attention the historical Trent cottages that I was able to show him, which are located on the route. The cottages were built in the early 1860s to serve the railwaymen working close to Trent railway station, which was built at a similar time. They are a historical record of Long Eaton’s railway past, and I ask him to have due consideration of this when reviewing the route.
	I return to my starting point in welcoming the possibilities of this project. I take into account the proposed costs of the scheme and the environmental impact, based on the information that we have so far, but I also note the simple fact that we need to address capacity on our railway network. This project, with broad cross-party support, will be the biggest investment on our railways since the Victorian era. In the past 15 years demand for long-distance rail travel has doubled to 125 million journeys a year.

Andrew Turner: Is my hon. Friend aware that 1.5 million train journeys are carried out each day and that 56 million people never, or very seldom, travel on trains?

Jessica Lee: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I hear his statistics, but I also look to the future. The broad fact is that we are reaching full capacity on our railway network. We can either ignore that or address it; I think we need to address it.
	We also need to compete on a global basis. I will give just one example.

Richard Harrington: If my hon. Friend would like to see, as I have seen, the benefits of such a scheme, she should go to China and have a look at the effects of the high-speed network there, because those are the people we are competing with. I hope that she will do that before very long.

Jessica Lee: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s imaginative ideas. If an opportunity arises to visit China and observe its high-speed rail, I will be delighted to take it.
	Finally, I will always support projects that put Erewash on the map. The location of the east midlands hub will do that and more. Although my constituents can travel by train from Long Eaton to London in one and a half hours, there is a strong case for improving the travel times and infrastructure for the towns and cities of the midlands and further north. I will certainly advocate that case in Erewash.
	The Minister knows of my obsession with supporting local rail services. Time and again in Parliament, I have raised the campaign to fund the reopening of the train station at Ilkeston. I am delighted to say that that has been successful. I thank him for his support on that project.
	I represent a constituency at the heart of the east midlands, which has a strong and proud history of employment on the railways. If this project goes ahead, I have no doubt that that proud historical link will continue well into the future.

Graham Stringer: I will not detain the House long. I speak as the joint chair of the all-party parliamentary group for high-speed rail. I am therefore highly supportive of High Speed 2. I will make four simple points.
	First, this country has a shocking and disgraceful record on infrastructure, under Governments of all political persuasions. The costs of not keeping our infrastructure up to date are much greater than the costs of High Speed 2. We have built one new runway since the second world war, we have the lowest motorway density in what used to be called western Europe, the Dibden port proposal was turned down, we have only a few kilometres of high-speed rail between the south coast and London, and we have a much smaller rail system than we had 40 or 50 years ago. Our competitors are investing in all those areas of infrastructure, to our economic disbenefit.
	Secondly, the justification for High Speed 2 is not the speed, as has been said, but the capacity. Having high-speed rail will cost only 10% more than the alternative of building a brand new route and will bring the speed benefits as well as the extra capacity. The alternatives that are put forward by the opponents of High Speed 2 would provide only half the benefit, while costing a great amount of time, money and disruption, as we learned from the west coast main line build. If people are worried about the projections that are used to justify the investment in High Speed 2, they should consider the fact that train passenger numbers are already at the level projected for 2021.
	On the economic benefits, I am enormously sceptical of almost all economic models. There may be disbenefit to some towns and cities. The Transport Committee
	found that some towns in Europe that were joined to the TGV or other high-speed routes had benefited enormously, whereas others had disbenefited.

Mark Garnier: The hon. Gentleman is making a convincing argument in favour of HS2. He raises the important point that one of the perceived benefits is that economic activity will be drawn up the track. However, there is a risk that economic activity will actually be drawn down the track, away from the regions to London. Does he agree that, to mitigate that risk, it is important that we look to build a hub airport up the track as part of the infrastructure development of this country? A hub airport in Birmingham would be a good alternative to what is being suggested at the moment.

Graham Stringer: I will not be drawn into a discussion about hub airports.
	On the benefits and disbenefits, it is up to the people who run our towns and cities to ensure that people go in their direction and invest in their area. There is no doubt that such people want the high-speed line. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) said earlier that she wants the high-speed route to go to Liverpool. I do not blame her, given the potential benefit.
	I am sure that some of the arguments made against HS2 were made when railways began. The vested interests of stagecoach owners and bargees almost certainly led to their using similar arguments about how railways would not catch on. I know of no economic analysis that captures the likely benefits, but what we do know, from looking around the world, is that countries that invest in their transport infrastructure almost always do better economically. We should therefore invest.

Frank Dobson: As the proud MP who has King’s Cross, St Pancras and Euston stations in his constituency, I am rather in favour of the railways. For that matter, I am a member of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. However, I think my hon. Friend is falling into the sort of syllogism that something must be done, this is something, and therefore this must be done. There are better ways of spending this money on improving the railway system.

Graham Stringer: I hope I am not falling into that trap. I think that a high-speed system that will eventually join Edinburgh and Glasgow, through Manchester and Leeds, to Birmingham and London will be of enormous benefit to the country. I do not believe it is a perfect system and I do not believe it is being constructed in the best way, but it has all-party support and it can be improved. I personally believe that we should be building north to south, as well as south to north. I believe, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State said, that we should be building a link directly through to High Speed 1. However, I do not believe that any of those problems are sufficient to stop us investing in infrastructure that will help the whole of the country.

Andrew Bridgen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Graham Stringer: I will not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I have already given way twice.
	My last point comes from the experience of being responsible for building the second runway at Manchester airport. Paying compensation on the basis of free market value at the time is an extremely costly way of building infrastructure. Giving free market value plus 10%, 20% or 30%—whatever is appropriate—will speed up the process and save money. I hope the Government will give consideration to that, and to serious mitigation. If people take legal action because they think they are being treated unfairly, and if there is blight for a long time, that will hinder the project. It is estimated that delays in tunnelling on some high-speed routes have cost as much as the actual tunnelling. I therefore hope that on compensation the Government will not be short-sighted. I hope they will deal with the problems outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), and be generous in looking at the problems and pain caused. That will benefit the high-speed system in the end.

Martin Vickers: I rise to support the Bill. I am in favour of expanding our high-speed rail network. I respect hon. Members who represent constituencies that will be directly affected, and it is right that they fight for the best interests of their constituents. I have the advantage of representing a constituency that is in no way affected. Even the increased capacity, which is the prime motive for the development of a new network, will be of minimal benefit.

Andrew Bridgen: My hon. Friend says that his constituency will be in no way affected. Unfortunately, it will be, because his constituents—this is true of every constituency—will initially receive a bill for £75 million, rising to a possible £100 million.

Martin Vickers: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but similar points could be made about every item of Government expenditure. Ultimately, the increased capacity will benefit the more provincial towns and peripheral areas of our country. The network is operating to capacity. We heard from the Secretary of State that the west coast main line would be at capacity in the early 2020s, and similarly the east coast main line, which has an impact on my constituency, will soon be full.
	People have talked about blight, but speed is essential. Yes, there can be blight on individual properties and so on, but if that is to be the case, the sooner we get a decision on routes, compensation and so on, the better. Speed is also essential for the economy. We have heard, quite understandably, that connectivity is important to the development of our towns and cities, and that has been proved by countless reports over time. If Hudson and the other Victorian rail moguls had had to operate to timetables as stretched as that for HS2, I doubt whether the network would have developed to anything like the extent it did and from which this country benefited in the late-19th and 20th centuries.
	The Minister has just scuttled out of the Chamber. Perhaps he suspected that I was about to mention that increased capacity would allow additional services to Cleethorpes and elsewhere—but that is for the future. If we are to rebalance the economy to the benefit of the
	north of England, it is important that we have this increased capacity and connectivity. I can understand the arguments against it. The cost is phenomenal, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) pointed out, my constituents will have to bear some of that cost.
	[Interruption.] 
	Does my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) wish to intervene?

Brian Binley: indicated dissent.

Martin Vickers: No. Sorry, he looked, err—[Hon. Members: “Keep going!”] I’ll keep going, right. I think what he, err—I’ve lost my track now, I should say.

Lindsay Hoyle: You’ve lost your train of thought.

Martin Vickers: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will try to get back on line.
	I am very supportive of where the Government are going with this. I was talking about rebalancing the economy. The economy of my own area in northern Lincolnshire is highly dependent on rail. We talked about the importance of freight earlier. Some 25% of freight tonnage moved throughout the country starts or ends in my constituency at Immingham, so I hope that the increased capacity will provide greater opportunities not only for passengers, but for freight. I therefore support the Government and, sadly, will oppose the amendment.

Clive Betts: I, too, will support the Bill. I supported the Y route before it was the policy of the last Government, let alone of the parties in this Government, and argued strongly for it. I also agree with the comments made in the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), in which he recognised the importance of this scheme for our economy and the fact that over the years we have fallen behind our competitors in our investment in infrastructure.
	This is an important long-term investment for the country. Of course, different cost-benefit analyses will say different things. The problem is that the scheme will take 20 years to build and then will—we hope—deliver benefits for the country for many years after that, and if we put minor changes of assumptions into any cost-benefit analysis we will come up with very different results. To some extent, this is an act of faith. Do we believe that investment in the infrastructure of this country over the long term is likely to be good for the economy? I do, and I believe that high-speed rail is part of that long-term investment.
	For the same reasons, it will be important to the rebalancing of our economy by concentrating on the major growth points, which will be our city regions in the midlands and the north. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton said, the impacts will be different in different parts of the country, but the greatest benefits will tend to be in the city regions. We need to ensure that we get those benefits.
	I am therefore very pleased that Sheffield is on the route, and that there will be a station there. That has been welcomed by all parties in the city and by those in
	the public and private sectors. There is a difference of opinion on where the Sheffield station should be located. I understand the argument for having a loop into the city centre, but I equally accept that a station at Meadowhall in my constituency could have incredible benefits for the wider city region, provided the need for connectivity to the region is properly recognised. We do not want to hear the argument in the future that, because we have high-speed rail, we will get no further investment in our transport infrastructure, and that everything will be for local councils to decide.
	Looking ahead to the tram-train project, we need to determine how to develop that means of transport. I am sure it will be a success, even though it has taken nearly 10 years to get this far. When it has been proved to be a success, we must immediately start planning how to use it as a way of linking the Sheffield city region into the station hub at Meadowhall. That would benefit the whole city region.
	I also want to mention compensation. There are industries in my constituency that will be affected by the project, including Outokumpu, a major steel works. It is important, when we compensate such industries, that we recognise the time that they will need to prepare for the changes that high-speed rail will force them to make. It is also important to ensure that we give the compensation in a way that does not allow a firm to take the money and run, taking the jobs elsewhere.
	The Government’s exceptional hardship scheme is a welcome step forward, in regard to compensating people for their homes. We need to recognise that there might be people who have to move house, for whatever reason, before the full compensation scheme comes into effect, as well as those who might want to move for family or other reasons.

Cheryl Gillan: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that compensation has already been paid to some people, and that it can continue to be paid without this Bill? The problem is that the exceptional hardship scheme is proving difficult for people who meet the criteria but find that the compensation does not meet their circumstances because the value of their house has gone down so dramatically.

Clive Betts: I can understand that. I think that the right hon. Lady is making a wider point about the need to look at the whole compensation scheme, and I shall come to that in a second.
	Property owners in my constituency have not yet had any experience of the exceptional hardship scheme, but I wonder whether it could be widened to include those who want to move and make the same choices for their families as anyone else could make, but who are unable to do so while the potential blight from the high-speed line is hanging over them.

Frank Dobson: In my constituency, someone who used to be an owner-occupier got a job elsewhere and let their place. They have been told that they do not qualify for compensation because it is intended only for owner-occupiers.

Clive Betts: I understand that point. I have a constituent who bought a small property as an investment with a view to putting down a deposit on another family home into which they were planning to move in a year’s time. They, too, have been caught by that provision.
	I made the point earlier to the Secretary of State and to my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) that if we are asking people to make sacrifices for the benefit of the country, they deserve compensation of more than 100% of the value of their homes. They would get 100% if they chose to sell, but they are not choosing to sell; they are having to move, and we need to be more generous. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood made the very reasonable point that if we were more generous, it would almost certainly speed up the process, so let us have a look at that.
	In particular, let us have a look at the circumstances of my constituents who live on Greasbro road, which is a very low-value area. It is next to an ex-steelworks and to the motorway, and many people would not choose to live there, but it is a friendly road where people know their neighbours and family members who live nearby. They are worried about moving, and they know that they will probably not be able to buy another house in the local area with the compensation they will get. They ask why they should be penalised and forced to move away from the community that they know. Something more than the market value of their homes would help those people. It would not have to be a percentage increase on the market value; a lump sum in excess of the market value would particularly help people in low-value properties who do not want to reach retirement age in 10 years’ time and find that they have to take out an extra mortgage that they cannot afford.
	I support the high-speed rail scheme wholeheartedly, and I support it coming to Sheffield, but let us see whether we can help those people who will be affected and make the benefits to the community more generally accessible.

Andrew Bridgen: I draw the House’s attention to my previous declaration—that the proposed route of HS2 not only bisects my beautiful constituency, but runs within 100 yards of my home.
	I came to this place to try to do the right things for my constituents and, indeed, my country. I seem to find that a large amount of my time and effort is spent trying to stop bad things happening, which my constituents often reassure me amounts to much the same end, but I can assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is nowhere near as satisfying. There are few projects that I have ever believed are such a bad thing not only for my constituents, but for the whole country, as HS2. If this goes ahead, my constituency will take all the pain for none of the gain.
	What we are being asked to vote for today is the signing of a blank cheque for HS2 Ltd for a railway that is, in my opinion, a solution looking for a problem. This is a scheme with vast financial costs for the taxpayer and a high human cost for those unfortunate enough to live or to have their business on or near the proposed route. The financial costs were initially estimated by the Government this morning as £33 billion, but stand at over £42 billion this afternoon, with a further £7.5 billion for rolling stock. That is an enormous commitment at a time of austerity for a project that will not be ready until 2033 and is of questionable economic benefit.
	How can we be certain that today’s £10 billion of additional budget will prove to be the last? When it comes to keeping to budget, Government rail projects certainly have a terrible record. The west coast main line upgrade, which was initially estimated to cost £1.5 billion, ended up costing £9.9 billion. The Thameslink upgrade was estimated to cost £650 million in 1996, but the end costs will be nearer £6 billion on completion. We could be looking at a project with a final bill of many tens of billions more than the Government’s initial estimate or even today’s estimate. All that for a railway where the cost-benefit ratio analysis, even before today’s £10 billion, did not stack up. For phase 1, the Department for Transport claims that HS2 will produce £1.40 of benefit for every £1 spent. The Government categorise schemes below £1.50 as being low value for money—and that is before today’s extra £10 billion.

Cheryl Gillan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the cost benefit has been pushed to one side by Ministers today? Now claims are being made about extra capacity, but has it not been true of this project that at one moment it is about capacity, at the next moment it is about speed and at the next it is about restoring a better north-south balance? The objectives are always used to fit whatever the argument demands, and they seem to move around.

Andrew Bridgen: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. She is absolutely right, and I shall deal with the issue of capacity later in my speech.
	The cost-benefit ratios are questionable. As has already been pointed out, the assumption is that all time spent on trains is wasted time, so the figures are based on the extraordinary idea that when someone goes on a train they do not do any work. Anyone who travels on our railways will know that that is certainly not the case. It should also be noted that, compared to our European neighbours, journey times between first and second cities are considerably shorter in the UK. The journey time between Birmingham and London is already half that of high-speed rail travel in France and Spain.

David Mowat: My hon. Friend makes the point that others have made—that the business case does not properly reflect productive time, iPads and all the rest of it. Page 51 of the business case addresses that point explicitly, stating that if trains are overcrowded, people who are standing will not be able to work on PCs. The business case would be better if it took that into account.

Andrew Bridgen: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and I shall deal with the issue of capacity later in my speech and hope to address it then.
	When it comes to saving time—this point has been made several times today—I have never met a business person in my career who has said that the reason why their business is not thriving is that they cannot get to London quickly enough.
	Another argument cited is that HS2 will rebalance our economy. I agree with that argument, as I believe that it will rebalance our economy, but further in favour of the London and south-east. Indeed, no serious academics support the view that HS2 will reduce the north-south divide. For weekend and leisure travel, for instance,
	which is the more likely scenario—that more families will travel from London to spend an evening in Birmingham or Manchester, or that families from Birmingham and Manchester will use the route to spend time and money in London? I suggest to hon. and right hon. Members that the latter is the more likely scenario, and that HS2 will simply suck more money from the regions into London and the south-east.
	I therefore appeal to all Members to think very carefully about whether they are acting in the best interests of their constituents in supporting the signing of a blank cheque for this white elephant of a project, which is already forecast to cost every constituency in the country £75 million, and which, given the expected further overruns, could easily end up costing each constituency more than £100 million. Are Members prepared to support a scheme that will inevitably suck money away from transport schemes that could benefit their own constituencies? As for the issue of capacity, figures show that the west coast main line has the capacity for the 100% increase in passenger numbers that was proposed by FirstGroup when it submitted its franchise bid.

Brian Binley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Andrew Bridgen: With pleasure, and some trepidation.

Brian Binley: Does my hon. Friend not recognise that it has been stated categorically that capacity will be reached by 2026, although other people think that it will be reached earlier? Has he travelled on a London Midland train to London on which he could not get a seat and could hardly get through the door?

Andrew Bridgen: I put it to my hon. Friend that anyone predicting what capacity, or the demand for any commodity or product, will be in 20 years is living in dreamland. The capacity on the railway was driven by punitive taxes on company cars in the 1990s, and that will level out.
	HS2 is a huge project that will take a lot of stopping, but I suggest to Members that they would not eat an elephant in one sitting, even if it were a white one, and that today’s debate is merely the first serving of many. I do not believe that this project represents the best use of taxpayers’ money, and I therefore urge Members to support the amendment and vote against the Bill.

Natascha Engel: I shall vote for the amendment and against the Bill’s Second Reading, because I believe that this is the wrong scheme at the wrong time.
	In the few minutes available to me, I want to present a passionate defence of nimbyism. I think that this is a case less of “not in my back yard” than of “not through my front door and the rest of my house”. When we consider the people whose lives this project is affecting, we realise that the position is far too serious for them merely to be asked “How much compensation do you want?” People living in the villages and towns that the trains will pass through if the scheme goes ahead are being expected to wait for 20 years with it hanging over their heads, seeing no shovel in the ground anywhere in
	North East Derbyshire, unable to sell their homes, and money is being lost hand over fist in very small rural businesses.

Andrea Leadsom: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady. There is rarely an occasion on which I do not agree with her. Constituents of mine have been literally suicidal because of the complete lack of sympathy for them, and because they are unable to obtain to compensation although their businesses are failing. Does she agree with me that we must get the compensation right?

Natascha Engel: Absolutely. It has already been suggested that the compensation schemes should mirror those in other countries such as France, where big infrastructure projects go ahead with no problems because the schemes are so generous. However, it is not compensation that people are after. They are saying “I have lived in this town, or this village, for four or five generations and I do not want to move. I am being asked to accept all the disbenefits of HS2 without gaining any of the benefits.” If I represented a major town, I might be able to see the benefits of this project, but it does not bring us in North East Derbyshire any economic benefits. In fact, it does exactly the reverse. I cannot see the sense of what is happening, and I shall explain why. I would welcome the Minister’s response to this.
	Derbyshire county council has spent many years cleaning up, developing and redeveloping sites that were ruined by the results of the end of the mining industry and the steel industry in Sheffield. For decades those places have slowly been brought back into the economy. Up to £77 million has already been spent in Markham Vale, an area that I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner). That £77 million will, in effect, be wiped off because HS2 will be going straight through it. Chesterfield canal is one of the best and biggest pieces of redevelopment and regeneration in North East Derbyshire, bringing investment to the Chesterfield waterside project. There will not be a waterside project and the £310 million of investment that is coming into the local economy.
	What about the small businesses in towns and villages such as Renishaw, too? Such businesses become the focal points of villages. Already, only months after the route has been published, a local wedding business has lost £70,000, some 20 years before anything is due to happen.

Andrew Bridgen: Does the hon. Lady share my concern that about 30% of the businesses on the route that could be affected have suggested they would close down, rather than relocate, so all those jobs would be lost all the way along the route?

Natascha Engel: That is absolutely right. This affects rural areas differently from how it affects cities. We are talking here about HS2 and a national economic policy, but we are not distinguishing between the cities and the rural areas.
	I was going to go into the detail of the issue of connecting cities. This absolutely will connect cities, but that is not the issue for people who live in North East Derbyshire. In Apperknowle, what people want is to get a bus to the hospital, not to go to London. In each of the recent public meetings I have held, attended by
	hundreds of people, we asked when was the last time anybody had been to London. In one group of 300 people, five people had been to London in the past five years. This is not being done for the benefit of the people of North East Derbyshire.
	I have serious doubts about the business and economic case, too, but those concerns have been raised by other Members, so I will not rehearse them. I do want to say, however, that I have found the consultation to be the most disappointing part of this whole project. HS2 Ltd has been very good at consulting stakeholders, but the stakeholders do not include those people whose houses and businesses the route is going through. The project has failed at the level of going and talking to people—not just persuading them of why the train has to come through their front room, but explaining why a high-speed rail link is needed. People are just not convinced.
	At the same time as there is the hardship scheme, we are being told the route has not yet been fixed and the consultation has not even been opened, and therefore no decisions can be made on where the route is going to go. At the same time, however, not very far away from my constituency, a kink has been put in to get the train to go around Firth Rixson steelworks in Sheffield. Why are we allowing and announcing changes to the route when the consultation has not even been opened? If the Department for Transport and HS2 Ltd are open to persuasion, will they please put in a kink and go all the way around North East Derbyshire?

Andrea Leadsom: My views on HS2 since being elected to Parliament in 2010 are well known. I started by supporting the principle of high-speed rail but opposing the route, but the more I have found out about the project, the more I have become convinced it will not be to the benefit of British taxpayers.
	We have rightly heard a lot of talk about the value to the economy as a whole of any new railway line, and that is, of course, true: any new railway line will generate jobs and growth. There is no doubt about that, but the essential point that differentiates one project from another is value for money, and that is what we are not hearing about with the necessary level of clarity. What it costs to generate the growth is what matters. Today, we have heard that there is now a £14.4 billion contingency plan, which potentially makes this project 25% more expensive than before.
	We have also heard comparisons with the motorway network, the Jubilee line and HS1. They were all very much resisted at the time, but every single one of them was unique in its own way. For motorways, there is a junction every few miles, so everybody benefits from them; they undoubtedly promote growth in our economy. Likewise, the Jubilee line has many stops, and therefore benefits a huge swathe of the population. HS1 is unique in the sense that it was the link to mainland Europe. HS2 is none of those things; it is a decision that we have taken in isolation.

Stuart Andrew: HS1 has brought some multinational companies to the end of the route at King’s Cross. Surely that is a benefit that HS2 can bring to other cities, such as mine, Leeds.

Andrea Leadsom: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I am not denying that any railway line or other infrastructure will bring growth. I am saying that the critical differentiator is whether the line brings more growth and jobs than something else, and that is where the case for HS2 is not proven.

Brian Binley: I welcome the point about making more use of the high-speed track. Why, then, is my hon. Friend not campaigning vigorously for a station in Brackley, which would be of enormous benefit to her constituents?

Andrea Leadsom: I am delighted that my hon. Friend intervened, and that would be a possibility. The bottom line is that we are all here to represent our constituents. There is a case for making that argument, and if I made it, it would undermine the view of many of my constituents that this project is just wrong. Winning that argument would almost certainly cast the line in stone. My hon. Friend will understand that I could not do that, against the very clear wishes of my constituents.
	If this is about the value for money of this project versus that of any other project—not the absolute but the relative level of growth and jobs generated by this project, compared with a different one—we need to ask ourselves, first, is this the best value for money for taxpayers? HS2 does mean little curvature of the line. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) said that a high-speed track is not much more expensive than a regular train track. That is not what HS2 engineers have told me. They said that it is very engineering-intensive. Because it has to go in a straight line, because there are lots of flood plains, hills and other inconveniences, and because of the speed of the trains, the line has to go through, under and over those obstacles. Therefore, it is much more expensive.
	Secondly, high-speed rail has an exponentially higher carbon footprint, so in that sense it is not environmentally friendly compared with a classic line. HS2 has a massive impact on valuable open countryside and sites of special scientific interest, battlefield sites, grade I listed homes and so on.
	Thirdly, if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) said, this is about capacity, why not go slightly slower but along an existing travel corridor, so that costs and the impact can be reduced? Fourthly, is the project going to deliver soon enough? We will have no use of it until 2026, yet people say all the time that rail capacity is needed now. Fifthly, does it create the maximum number of jobs? Would another, less engineering-intensive project along an easier route, which we could easily find if speed were not the only goal, generate more jobs? Finally, what about both ends? Does it really make sense to decide where the traveller ends up before we have decided on our strategy for airports?
	Having said all that, I note the commitment of the Government and the Opposition, who are determined to see this project built. Although I remain optimistic that during the Bill’s progress substantial changes may be achieved, it is important for me to be realistic. If HS2 is to go ahead, I want to achieve fair compensation and mitigation for the hundreds of my constituents who will be so devastatingly affected.
	On mitigation, I urge the Government to ensure that HS2 is much more transparent and that they engage with communities much better than they currently are. Communities’ ideas on mitigation must be given full and proper consideration. The Department for Transport must prioritise the consultation on a full compensation scheme as a matter of urgency. It is shocking that a judicial review had to determine that the original consultation was unfair and in fact unlawful. The exceptional hardship scheme, to my constituents’ bitter experience, has been nothing short of a disaster. Residents up and down the proposed line of route and in the surrounding communities find themselves trapped in their own homes, unable to move either home or business. I strongly urge the Minister urgently to help with this situation.
	I hope that, as well as a full compensation scheme that is more generous than the statutory requirement, the Government will agree to a property bond, and that the Secretary of State will meet with the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the National Association of Estate Agents, among others, in order properly to explore the options for a property bond. If banks will not give mortgages on properties because they are blighted by HS2, people cannot get on with their lives, at least until 2026. That is absolutely unacceptable.
	Finally, I really regret the position that many Members have been placed in by the Bill. We have been told that this is a vote on the principle of HS2, yet we are also told it is an opportunity for a meaningful compensation scheme to be put in place for those affected. That makes me very schizophrenic, and it places all Members who have strong feelings about this project in a difficult position. I do not want to vote in favour of HS2 but I also do not want to do anything that delays my constituents’ receiving the compensation they deserve. As this is the first opportunity in the Chamber to vote on the principle of HS2, I shall, with a heavy heart, have to vote for the reasoned amendment and against the Second Reading of the Bill, and I urge colleagues to do likewise.

Lyn Brown: I am delighted to be at this debate and supporting this Bill, providing, as it will, the ability for the Government to spend money preparing the way for a second high-speed rail service serving London and the regions. My constituency has running through it the route of High Speed 1 and, in talking about spending and finance, I would like to draw the House’s attention to the need to ensure that spending on the new route is planned in a way that capitalises on investment already made, so that we get more bang for the taxpayers’ bucks.
	How we will do that is by providing for a substantial link between HS1 and HS2. This new spending should provide this link, with the most obvious and effective way being to utilise the connection to Stratford in my constituency of West Ham. I am arguing that the link between HS1 and HS2 should be substantial and robust enough to enable Stratford to play a major role in the wider high-speed network. That would include it being the London stop for those international services that originate in the regions, thus adding to the viability and the financial business case of those services and, indeed, of HS2 itself. I am not aware of any costings yet
	undertaken on the funding needed for a robust link, so I ask the Minister to enlighten me in his summing up as to whether any are so far available.
	If Stratford becomes a major support station in east London catering for HS2, inter-city and inter-regional services, that would significantly reduce the numbers needing to use the Euston terminus, and Euston could be smaller as a result. The planned Old Oak interchange on its own will not enable enough HS2 travellers to avoid the Euston terminus; we need an enhanced role for Stratford in the east to cater for a similar proportion and then we can have a much slimmed-down Euston terminus.

Andy Slaughter: I hate to disagree with my hon. Friend, particularly as she is my Whip, but I think she will see that the overwhelming consensus of opinion is in favour of the Old Oak interchange. Although I understand that she is standing up for her constituents, I think she is whistling in the wind rather here.

Lyn Brown: Old Oak—where? All I would say to my hon. Friend is that Stratford has an international station, called the Stratford International station—the message is in the title. I suggest that he needs to look further and wider than his local concerns in order to understand the case. And if he ever wants to be slipped again, I suggest he stays seated.
	As I was saying, we need an enhanced role for Stratford in the east to cater for a similar proportion and then we can have a much more slimmed-down Euston terminus. With a twin-track link to Stratford from Camden town, and with the proposals for Old Oak, the number of platforms at Euston would reduce from 12 to six or fewer. Recent research shows that there would be almost as much demand for trips to east London, docklands, Essex, East Anglia and Kent from HS2 travellers as for trips to central London. Using Stratford helps to cater for those needs. Perhaps the Minister would like to talk to the leader of his local county council, who, along with others, funded this research. His constituents will also, I am sure, be interested in the better travel options that will be available to them if this money is spent wisely. The interconnectivity of Stratford is already good, unlike—where was it? The two stations at Stratford serve 100 million passengers a year and it is the UK’s rail hub with the sixth highest use. It has two tube lines, regional rail services to Kent, Essex and East Anglia, and the docklands light railway, and it is strategically positioned for Canary Wharf, London City airport, and the Excel exhibition centre. Of course, it will have Crossrail.
	The expenditure we are talking about today must include a robust and substantial link to Stratford between HS1 and HS2. About £1 billion of taxpayers’ money has already been invested in Newham’s international station, so it should get the international services for which it was built. To do otherwise would be crazy.
	The business case for spend on HS2 will be greatly strengthened by a link that enables Stratford International to play a full role in the new network and the spending we are talking about today will be more effective as a result. I urge the Minister to try to ensure that that link is delivered.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am pleased to speak in favour of Second Reading and against the amendment. I have been struck today by the large degree of cross-party support that High Speed 2 commands. Obviously, we have heard objections from Members on both sides of the House, largely from people representing constituencies that will be affected by the route. That is perfectly understandable; that is what happens in the House of Commons. Different interests come together—often there is conflict, and often there is compromise. It is perfectly legitimate for people whose constituents, and their livelihoods, are affected by the direct building of the route to state their objections, but it is also perfectly reasonable for people to speak in this House on behalf of the national interest and it is clear to me that High Speed 2 is very much in the national interest.

Frank Dobson: I am reminded that within a week of first becoming a Member of this House, there was a vote on an issue that had those on both Front Benches on the same side. An old Tory knight of the shires said to me, “Whenever the two Front Benches are in agreement, some poor devil is being done down.”

Kwasi Kwarteng: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s witty intervention, but I do not think it has anything to do with the debate. It was a well-enjoyed interlude.
	We have not had any real perception, understanding or analysis in the debate of what high-speed rail has meant for our partner countries in Europe. I am a member of the Select Committee on Transport and we went to France and to Germany. Nobody in those countries is suggesting that they should close down their high-speed routes. Indeed, everyone we met, from local residents to other stakeholders, Government people and business people, was determined to expand the network.
	I am not suggesting for a minute that because such things are supported in France and Germany we should follow that path, but I am saying that we should investigate, as we have, the reasons behind their approach. We need some very good reasons why Britain is so peculiar and different that high-speed rail will not benefit us. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State observed, Italy has 960 miles of high-speed rail. We have only a small amount—only 60 miles, I believe—

Simon Burns: Sixty-seven.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am sorry—67.
	Everyone else—including China and others around the world—is looking to expand their high-speed rail network. It is only in this country where we are looking not to build any further expansion of the network. That should strike right hon. and hon. Members as very bizarre.

William Cash: In his pilgrimages around the European Union, did my hon. Friend have the opportunity to speak to the citizens of Lyon and see whether they were as enthusiastic as he is about high-speed rail? I hear something quite different.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am not sure which citizens of that famous French city my hon. Friend has been speaking to, but the ones we met were very enthusiastic, as were people in other cities. Lille, for example, has been transformed by the high-speed rail—of course it has, and that is a good thing. No one in France is suggesting that the high-speed rail network should be closed down and the country should go back to what it had before.
	There are clear economic benefits. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) suggested that freight transport is growing at 10% a year. How on earth can that growth in freight be accommodated without substantial investment in our railway infrastructure and without building a high-speed rail network? As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) said, simply building another line that is not a high-speed line will cost just as much and not give the benefits, and no one is suggesting that as an alternative.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am suggesting precisely that alternative. I have a scheme for a dedicated freight route, capable of carrying lorries on trains, that would cost a fraction of HS2 and take all the freight off the north-south lines, freeing them up for more passengers.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am pleased that we have Members with such fertile imaginations in this House that the hon. Gentleman has his own scheme. I have not looked at it, though, so I could not possibly comment.
	What is clear to me, as a Member for a south-east constituency that is very built-up and highly residential, is that disputes about infrastructure spending are inevitable. I suggested that when the Tower of London was built, people objected to it on quite worthy grounds. There have been objections to every piece of infrastructure spending in this country for hundreds of years, but that does not mean that we have not gone ahead and built the railways or the ports. We are a commercial nation with incredible skills in engineering. We have, or we used to have, great architecture and engineering—I am not casting aspersions on current architecture, just suggesting that it was very good in the past—so there is no reason to suggest, as some have, that HS2 will be a blight on the countryside. It will change of course, but as has been pointed out, Isambard Kingdom Brunel and other Victorians completely transformed the landscape of this country, but they did not make it worse in any way.

Andrew Turner: It was the private sector that did it, not the public sector.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I hear my hon. Friend chuntering from a sedentary position. We have an extremely interesting side of the Conservative party that refuses to countenance any Government spending on infrastructure. Happily, I am not of that wing of the party and recommend that both sides of the House come together in support of the Bill.
	My final few words will be about the financing. Yes, £50 billion is a lot of money, but it will be spent over 20 years and, if one uses straight line depreciation, it is not much more than the infrastructure spend on Crossrail. I would suggest that HS2’s benefits are much more
	transformative than the Crossrail project’s, so on that basis alone, I urge colleagues to vote in favour of Second Reading.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Sixteen Members still wish to participate in the debate, and I fully appreciate how important this is for their constituencies. I am therefore reducing the time limit to four minutes from now on. May I please ask Members who have already spoken to intervene sparingly, if at all, and those who are still waiting to speak to realise that an intervention will take time from their speaking time later in the debate?

Andy Slaughter: It is a pleasure to follow, even at two thirds of the rate, the stirring speech made by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng). I support the Bill, the principle and, indeed, the route—with the caveat about the London terminus—for many of the reasons given by the Secretary of State and shadow Secretary of State. It seems bizarre that when most of the developed world believes in having a high-speed rail network, we might want to rely on 19th-century railways. That is not to disparage the existing railways, which have stood us and continue to stand us in good stead, but the example of how they were built is one that I think we should follow, rather than shy away from. Having said that, I am concerned about pricing. Completion is a long way off, and there is a danger of this becoming a rich man’s railway. Cost control is an issue, and costs have spiralled before the project has even left the drawing board. There is also the issue of compensation, and whether it will be adequate.
	It appears, however that there is consensus—given the time, I shall restrict myself to this—about the proposal that Old Oak, which is in my constituency, should be the major interchange. It would become the fifth busiest station in the country, with a Crossrail station, and links to HS1, tube lines, First Great Western services and Heathrow. A rail interchange in west London would be of massive benefit in an area much of which is categorised as being in the 1% most deprived in the country. Within a mile of the proposed station, 50% of the adult working population is unemployed.
	On Friday, the boroughs and the Greater London authority will publish a vision for the future of Old Oak, described in rather hyperbolic terms as the new Canary Wharf. There is talk of 90,000 jobs and 19,000 new homes, and I am pleased that the boroughs have already taken an interest. However, there are local problems. As currently envisaged, there are poor links with HS1, tube lines and the west London line. There is an inadequate road network and poor-quality station design. We should look at the option of making Old Oak the terminus. I have an open mind on that, although I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) would urge me to be stronger in my opinion because he does not want the line to go to Euston, and he is certainly right that the connectivity from Old Oak is better than the connectivity from Euston. It appears that HS2 Ltd wanted to go to Euston simply because it wanted to say that it had a central London terminus, but it should look at that
	again. With all due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who is no longer in the Chamber, Stratford International is an exception to the rule, “If you build it, they will come.” There is consensus about where the interchange should be.
	My other caveat is that we have to take care with the construction. Most compulsory purchase schemes are hopelessly inadequate both in the compensation that they offer and the way in which people are dealt with. The effect on small businesses and even large businesses—Cargiant is in my constituency, as well as Wormwood scrubs, which is a large area of important open space—must be considered, and I hope that the project will be undertaken sympathetically, however important it is to the nation. Finally, I back my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras in saying, “Please take HS2 Ltd off the job”. The company is not making a good job of promoting the scheme, and we should find someone who will take this national project forward in the way that it should be done.

Brian Binley: Life can deal some heavy blows, but not usually from so kind a Deputy Speaker. I will discard most of what I was going to say about capacity to meet your requirements, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will simply say that connectivity is vital. Capacity is highly limited, and one need only talk to my constituents in Northampton to know how much capacity impacts on performance. They are pretty sick of it.
	I was going to discuss whether it was worth the money or not but, again, that argument goes out the window. I would only say that any business man would willingly accept a benefit ratio of 2.5:1, and would grasp at it. To say that that is not good enough for a national project of this kind is crazy. I was going to discuss the benefits of the project for my good constituents, but that is out of the window too. I shall merely say that we are driving ahead with a project called Northampton Alive. We are expected to build 56,000 houses to help ease the problems of the south-east and London, and we need a better rail link to service those people. The only way we are going to get it is by having additional capacity.
	Now let me talk about the one thing that most speakers have not talked about, other than my good friend the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins)—an honourable friend, too. Freight is a major player in the whole of our rail network. It has grown sizeably, to the point where it is now delivering 90 million tonnes of goods each year. That rate is growing by more than 10% a year. We cannot accommodate that growth on the west coast main line. We need another line to enhance the corridor. That is why high-speed rail is so important, why it impacts upon the national interest, and why it is massively important to Britain’s prosperity and to the future well-being of my children and grandchildren.
	Do not forget the freight issue. It is vital to the debate. The second issue that is vital is connectivity, as I indicated earlier. If we do not have a high-speed rail link to Europe and beyond, we will miss out massively. I am sorry if my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) is thinking, “Rarely do you do this as a little Englander.”
	In the long-term future we will have high-speed rail links to south-east Asia and to the middle east, provided people there can settle down and settle their differences. That future is what we are thinking about when we talk about High Speed 2.
	So what are my conclusions? High Speed 2 is vital to the nation’s future economic well-being. It will improve rail connections between economically important parts of our country and with our markets in Europe and beyond. It will stop heavy lorries from Prague, Warsaw and Bratislava messing up our road network. I want to see a more effective rail network and High Speed 2 is a vital part of that. I pray that this House has the courage to make that decision and make it now.

Kelvin Hopkins: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley). His emphasis on freight is absolutely right. I have a scheme which would solve all his problems and, I believe, the country’s problems, but that is another story.
	I am a long-term passionate believer in railways as the mode of transport for the future. That was not true 30 years ago. It is gratifying to see Members on both sides of the House supporting the principle of railways, even if we disagree about what particular railways we ought to build. I remain sceptical about HS2. I believe it is unnecessary and extremely expensive, and the opportunity cost of spending elsewhere is very great indeed. But I do not want to be negative; I want to propose sensible, practical alternatives.
	The core of all the problems of capacity is London to Birmingham and there is an alternative, which is to upgrade the route between Paddington and Birmingham Snow Hill via Banbury. That could double capacity between London and Birmingham, and also would go to a very sensible terminus at Paddington, which is of course on Crossrail. At the Birmingham end, Snow Hill is in the town centre. The station for HS2 will be away from the town centre, so much of the advantage of speed will be lost in extra transport from that station into the town centre, but Snow Hill is in the centre. That would be a great advantage.
	In 1990 British Rail, as it was in those days, freed up the line and ran a train from London to Edinburgh with a two-minute stop at Newcastle. For most of the journey it was a 140 mph operation. The journey took three and a half hours—two and a half hours to Newcastle, three and a half hours to Edinburgh—which was eight minutes faster than the time advertised for HS2 now, so it can be done. We need to upgrade the route on the east coast main line, which means a double viaduct at Welwyn, so that there are four tracks at Welwyn instead of two; an east-west flyover at Peterborough; and a flyover for the Lincoln route at Newark.
	All that will free up the line for a very fast, mostly 140 mph, operation on the east coast main line, and we can get that journey to Edinburgh eight minutes faster than HS2. It also means that we could get a one and a half hour operation from King’s Cross to Leeds, using the east coast main line. There is even another route to get to Sheffield via Retford from King’s Cross, providing additional fast capacity—not high speed, but fast. Much of that route would be 140 mph.
	There are sensible alternatives. They would require a bit of upgrading, such as the redevelopment of some stations, but we would be talking about spending a couple of billion pounds, not £50 billion or more. They would make life much easier for everyone and free up all that extra spending for other routes. The whole railway system, being Victorian, needs an enormous amount of work, including electrification and track renewal, which is needed in many areas.
	I also think that we need a dedicated rail freight line, built on old track beds and underused lines, running from the Thames right up to Glasgow, linking all Britain’s main conurbations, and capable of carrying lorries on trains. Some 80% of freight goes by lorry, rather than container. They cannot get through tunnels and bridges, so it would have to be on a new dedicated route capable of taking that kind of traffic. That is what we need to do, and it would cost a fraction of HS2. All those other operations, when added together, would cost much less than HS2 and provide much more benefit. If the cost-benefit analysis was done for that, and for the other routes I have mentioned, I think we would see that it is much more desirable in social, economic and financial terms.

Andrew Turner: HS2 has been proposed as a solution to the problems we currently face. We are told that it is green, that it will deliver regional growth and that it will resolve slow journey speeds between British cities. However, all those claims are questionable. It is important that we highlight them before UK taxpayers are asked to foot the enormous bill of £32.7 billion.
	HS2 will lead to an increase in CO2 emissions. Its supporters insist that the project is carbon-neutral. However, according to HS2 Action Alliance, 250 mph trains use three times as much power as 125 mph trains. HS2 Ltd’s plans rely on transferring passengers from existing classic rail, which uses much less fuel and carbon, to high-speed trains. That means that the new line will have few, if any, environmental benefits.
	We have also failed to learn lessons from High Speed 1. In Kent, Thanet remains one of the most deprived areas in England, despite being served by high-speed rail that runs direct to London. Even the experts are questioning the proposals. Professor Mackie of the University of Leeds has said:
	“For various reasons HS2 is rather unlikely to make much difference to the north-south divide. A spatial analysis would probably show London to be the main benefiting region”.
	It is unlikely that HS2 will deliver the regional benefits that have been promised.
	London operates as a brilliant hub, and cities across the country have brilliant connections with the capital, but that should not be the focus of investment. Lines outside London need investment too. People do not travel out of London to work and then back again to sleep; the overwhelming majority come into London for work. Our European neighbours have had a similar experience. I will give just one example. In France, on the line connecting Paris, Rhone and the Alps, passenger growth to Paris was three times greater than that from Paris.
	The only people who will benefit from the project will be those living within about a 10-mile radius of the station near Birmingham on the HS2 line. Those who live any further away, such as the black country or Coventry, will be asked to travel more than 10 miles. Will people really be prepared to pay the cost of travelling to stations more than 10 miles away? Even if subsidised travel is provided, why should 99% of people have to pay for the 1% who use the line?

Anne Main: Does it not seem rather perverse that we are reducing the amount of public subsidy for some commuters, such as those who take the line from my constituency to London, while putting massive public subsidy into another line? It is very much like cherry-picking.

Andrew Turner: I must agree. Only a very small percentage of people use trains regularly. As the Transport Secretary has said, 10 million people travel annually on HS1, or about 30,000 people a day; another, say, 1.5 million people travel on all the other trains. What is the number of those not travelling? Practically everyone else in the country—59 million, say. That is the difference: 1.5 million on the one hand and 59 million on the other.
	Another argument in favour of HS2 is that current trains are too full and the project will provide the opportunity to increase capacity. I disagree. If trains are currently too full, why not put the prices up? The way to make that fair would be to say to current regular commuters, “Yes, you can keep the current rate but a new user of the trains should be required to pay a bit more.” That would encourage further growth and investment in towns and cities outside London and raise more money towards the costs of running trains.
	If it is to be delivered, the project must be delivered using private funds. The public sector should not be expected to foot the bill for HS2 while people are having to make their own financial sacrifices, and there will be no need at all to spend public money once we are out of austerity.

Susan Elan Jones: Like many Members, I was rather saddened when I realised that the time for our speeches would be cut by half, until I realised that that is exactly what will happen to train journeys to my part of north Wales with the advent of high-speed rail.
	Many local concerns have been legitimately aired in this debate and it is important that Front Benchers on both sides take those seriously, because they are fair and legitimate in respect of compensation. However, for me the crux of the matter is that I do not believe it can be right that from here it is quicker to get to Paris than to Wrexham, to Brussels than to Liverpool and to Rotterdam than to Glasgow. It is not right that while France, Germany, Italy and Spain all enjoy high-speed rail networks, we in Britain—the country that invented railways—do not have a comparable system.
	I lived and worked in Japan for almost three years and saw how that country’s amazing bullet trains, the Shinkansen, can connect a nation and make travel so much faster. The Bill will bring jobs, growth and investment to the UK as a whole and, critically for me, to my home
	area of north Wales, although it is not directly on the line. I am delighted that such eminent Welsh experts as Professor Stuart Cole of the university of Glamorgan are pointing to the real benefits to Wales in terms of inward investment due to speedier connections and greater capacity.
	As I said, the planned route does not go directly into Wales, but it is still hugely important for connectivity and investment. Getting the journey time from London to such key hubs as Manchester or Liverpool down to an hour and 10 minutes—and to Birmingham, I believe, down to 49 minutes—would be a massive improvement. If the proposed Crewe stop in the second phase takes place, as I very much hope it will, that would also improve things immeasurably. The investment would mean that getting business representatives from London to north Wales and back in a day would be easy. That is the sort of investment that we need.
	I do not believe that backing HS2 excludes support for other improvements—indeed, both together are complementary. Backing HS2 does not exclude making the case for direct-line trains now from Wrexham, Gobowen and Shrewsbury to London on the west coast main line service. A Conservative Member made that case earlier and colleagues from north Wales and neighbouring Members from Shropshire, across the political divide, will continue to press it. Supporting HS2 certainly does not exclude the importance of electrification for north Wales and improvements to rail services in west Wales. All those programmes are vital.
	We must, of course, ensure that there are sensible, proper connections from HS2 stations. Last week, in a debate in this House, we were reminded that it was the anniversary of the battle of Waterloo. I am loth to tread on the subject of European politics in this place, but might I be so bold as to ask why, if the French can manage high-speed trains, we should settle for something slower and second best?
	I believe that the programme is needed for jobs, investment and connectivity—I emphasise connectivity, given the nature of my constituency. It is good for Wales, including north Wales, and for Britain. I welcome it and wish it well.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: In the light of your entreaty and decision to cut us down to four minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have binned my speech.
	I say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that I am going to support this Bill because I believe strongly in the principle of a superb infrastructure to enable this country to be competitive in the 21st century. I hope, however, that he will regard me as a critical friend, because I think that his proposed route contains two fundamental weaknesses.
	Before I talk about that, I would like to concentrate on the costs. In discussing this Bill which we are, I hope, going to pass, we need to know precisely what costs we are dealing with. My right hon. Friend has now given us two lots of costs, and I hope that he or the Minister of State will clarify exactly what those costs are. I believe that we are now talking about £42 billion for phase 1 and phase 2, plus some £9 billion for rolling stock, making a total of about £51 billion. It would be enormously helpful if he could clarify those costs.
	It was not an idle intervention that I made on my right hon. Friend earlier. I do think that money should be available from Europe in the transnational networks, and I hope that he and his Department are urgently investigating that. As the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) said, a lot of the superb high-speed rail network was funded by Europe.
	In the very short time I have available, let me deal with the two fundamental flaws in the proposed route. First, it is completely wrong to have an holistic transport policy that does not link HS2 with our major hub airport. Sir Howard Davies and his airport commission will not report until after the next election, so how can it make sense to fix a route when we do not know where the hub airport will be? If, for example, he favours—I make no recommendation as to which option he should favour—an estuarial hub airport solution, the current route would be in completely the wrong place.
	The other fundamental flaw in the route is that it does not properly link HS2 and HS1. Other Members have talked about this, particularly the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown). I would say to her, and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that they should look at the process that was involved with HS1. The then new Secretary of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), very late in the day, called in all the evidence and changed the route. That route, which had been designed by British Rail, went right through south London and was going to blight large numbers of houses, and he changed it at the very last minute. If he had not done so, Stratford International would never have come into being and the Olympics would never have taken place. I say this to my right hon. Friend: do please look at the route, because if we are spending this vast amount of money, let us, as a nation, get the maximum out of it.
	I commend to my right hon. Friend a solution proposed by Ove Arup—the Heathrow hub. A Heathrow hub would produce a truly holistic transport policy integrating road, rail, freight and air. Above all, it would benefit my constituents in the west, because the newly electrified west coast main line would go into the Heathrow hub rather than having to go into Paddington and out again, as is currently the case if people want to get to Heathrow by rail. A Heathrow hub would also benefit my right hon. Friend—my good friend—the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), because the route could be altered to be taken along the M40. I ask my right hon. Friend to think about existing transport networks, as with HS1, because if HS2 is run along existing motorway links, each one cancels out the other.
	I believe in this new HS2 project, which will put Britain into the forefront of competitiveness in the 21st century, but will my right hon. Friend please have a look at the route?

Graeme Morrice: I firmly support the delivery of a new north-south rail line, because faster journeys will bring the constituent parts of our island closer together.
	As a Scottish MP, my views on HS2 as it affects and, indeed, benefits Scotland, are coloured by the area I represent. The announcement of plans to extend the high-speed rail network north of Birmingham is welcome
	news, but it is right that all parts of the country, including of course Scotland, should benefit from such a significant expansion of the country’s transport infrastructure. As it stands, the plan takes high-speed rail only halfway from London to Scotland, so there is a real necessity to extend the network further north to Edinburgh and Glasgow. These better services would provide benefits to the Scottish economy of about £3 billion, as businesses in the cities would be able to operate more efficiently, increasing their productivity while accessing new markets and labour pools. Firms throughout the UK would be able to look to Scotland for business opportunities that distance and congestion had previously made less attractive. Tourism on both sides of the border would be boosted as the UK was opened up to faster, more convenient travel. Scotland’s strong engineering base might also benefit from the employment opportunities that the planning and construction of High Speed 2 will provide.
	Importantly for Scotland, bringing Edinburgh and Glasgow closer to London, as well as to the cities of the midlands and the north of England, would undoubtedly boost growth across all of its major conurbations. It would also open up the opportunity for through trains to run from Scotland to Paris and Brussels.
	The argument is reinforced by reports that estimate that the regional economic benefits of high-speed rail for central Scotland would be about £20 billion over a 60 year period, which compares with £5.4 billion for the west midlands. Studies reiterate that the most cost-effective option for a rail route between London and Scotland is a new high-speed route that connects London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow and Edinburgh. Such a network would be expected to deliver up to £50 billion of business benefits alone. That would be felt greatly in Scotland and the north of England, as well as in the south.
	We need extra capacity on north-south routes sooner rather than later and all northern cities must be able to link into those routes. It is apparent that that might not be fully realised. I understand that the HS2 technical director has described the construction of the UK’s high-speed rail network as the work of generations. It will be many years before England and Scotland are connected in this way. Public opinion demands that the high-speed network be extended north of the border. Concerns have also been expressed about the lack of information about funding, costs, routes and the location of terminal stations.
	To sum up, the Scottish end of the UK’s high-speed network should be built as soon as possible so that we can have the immediate benefit of a high-speed line between Edinburgh and Glasgow. I call on the Minister to commit to a concrete timetable for extending high-speed rail to Scotland. Not only would high-speed rail boost the Scottish economy and support thousands of jobs in Scotland and throughout the UK, but it would give us a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reshape the economic geography of the whole country.

Alec Shelbrooke: I offer a heartfelt thank you to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, who have
	been exceptionally receptive to me and my constituents and have worked hard to resolve the issues with HS2 in my constituency.
	I fully support HS2. It is a vital project for Leeds. Unfortunately, the plan that has been put forward is unacceptable, but my right hon. Friends have worked very closely with me and we have come up with some ideas. The route will still go through my constituency, but hopefully those ideas will form part of the consultation. As has been said, it is important that we utilise, as far as is possible, the high-traffic corridors that already exist, such as the M1, which is 12 lanes wide up to Leeds.

Andrew Bridgen: My hon. Friend says that he overwhelmingly supports HS2. He supported it this morning when it was going to cost £33 billion. He supports it now that it will cost £43 billion. Will he support it when it will cost £50 billion or £60 billion?

Alec Shelbrooke: I am glad for the extra minute, but my hon. Friend knows that he is making those figures up. He is including the contingency, which will not necessarily be spent. The Secretary of State has also made it clear that £5 billion will be spent on rolling stock, which could go on the existing west coast and east coast main lines. My hon. Friend knows that he is being rather naughty with the figures.
	Returning to the advantages for Leeds, over the past decade Leeds has been a growth city. A great deal of business has come to Leeds. There are things that we need. I lead on transport issues within the team of Leeds MPs. Leeds is crying out for its transport network to be improved, because it is worse than it was in the 1950s. We want to move forward with the tram-train system.
	None of those things will happen unless there is investment in our northern cities. That is one reason why HS2 is so important. There are huge commercial opportunities in Leeds. There is also a willing and able work force in and around Yorkshire that can be drawn to Leeds. We have got to get away from the idea of its being a Leeds to London link. The most important benefit to Leeds—yes, we will be able to get to London within an hour and 20 minutes—will be the Javelin trains, which will service a wide area of the Leeds city region and will link up, if I can get a tram-train system put in, with the Leeds-Bradford International airport, which is vital to the economy of Yorkshire. Thanks to lobbying by the airport and local MPs, there are now three British Airways flights a day to Heathrow, which dock at terminal 5. The Javelin trains will cover the wider area, so that people in south Yorkshire and west Yorkshire will be able to get to Leeds-Bradford airport in minimum time, get airside and get off in New York, San Francisco, Australia or wherever they are going. HS2 will open that up. It is nonsensical to say that we need to discuss where we are going with the airline industry first before we talk about HS2—they complement each other.
	In April, we came to the House during the recess to reflect on the death of Margaret Thatcher. Many Members on the Government Benches gave speeches about how she was a visionary, and how she led and did what she thought was right. I ask my hon. Friends to reflect on the great lady’s comments in 1986, on the opening of the M25:
	“Now some people are saying that the road is too small, even that it’s a disaster. I must say I can’t stand those who carp and criticise when they ought to be congratulating Britain on a magnificent achievement and beating the drum for Britain all over the world.”
	I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister remembers the quote. She went on to say:
	“And to those who say, ‘we always build our roads too small’ we can only point out that at some of the planning enquires those who object to the new road say that our traffic forecasts are excessive, and that improvements to existing roads would be enough. Fortunately the planning inspectors and successive Secretaries of State have not accepted that viewpoint.”
	We can see the comparison with the high-speed rail network, which I believe is vital for my home city of Leeds and for the growth of Britain.

Kris Hopkins: I rise to support the Bill. HS2 will link eight of Britain’s 10 largest cities. As a Yorkshire MP, that is not just good news for Leeds and Sheffield, but for the wider economy. My nearest city, Bradford, is intrinsically linked by its economy to Leeds. The key benefits of jobs, increased capacity and shorter journey times will transform the north of England’s ability to contribute to the economy, which is why I am extremely disappointed that the Labour-led leadership on Bradford council has turned its back on this project. I ask them to reconsider. If the great wealth generators of the industrial revolution who transformed our northern cities had the same limited vision for our communities as the Labour party in Bradford, this country would not have achieved the greatness it attained.
	As a direct consequence of this investment, two-thirds of the population of the north of England will be within two hours’ reach of London’s markets. Redrawing the economic geography of the nation will bring our cities closer together and contribute to rebalancing growth and opportunity. The growth in jobs could start earlier by starting the build at both ends of the proposed route, and by ensuring that materials and the work force are sourced as much from the north of England as they are from the south. We need that investment in the north of England. We have a huge contribution to make to Britain’s economy, and that will help us to win the global race that the Chancellor talked about earlier today.
	Not since the Victorian era has there been this level of investment in our rail infrastructure. I am sure that the businessmen and women who have to stand on trains on the east coast main line at peak times all the way to Doncaster before they can get a seat will vouch for that lack of investment. The imbalance between the economies of the north and the south cannot carry on. The Bill is a key component in bringing about change and I ask my colleagues to support it.

Jeremy Lefroy: Earlier this year, hundreds of my constituents awoke to find that the value of their homes had been substantially reduced and those who had plans to move discovered that purchasers could no longer get mortgages. That remains the case. The reason was the announcement of the preferred route for HS2—a route that followed none of
	the previously published options nor an existing transport corridor. Furthermore, the project will not see a shovel in the ground for 13 years and will only be completed in 20 years, meaning uncertainty and disruption for a generation. It was also a route that, I have been told, can hardly be altered, because it is designed to take ultra-high-speed trains travelling at up to 250 mph and hence must be straight. As a result, it goes through five villages in my constituency and comes very close to others.
	I have long advocated sensible investment in rail in the UK. When the previous Government proposed to build new track for the west coast main line across my constituency in order to cut journey times and improve capacity, I supported it, but I believe that HS2 is the wrong solution. The Government have rightly said that a new rail network needs to be designed to increase capacity, rather than speed, so I cannot understand the fixation with speeds of 225 mph to 250 mph, if that means that routes are so inflexible that they cannot follow existing corridors, such as motorways, as many have argued. No railway in Europe travels at that speed. The maximum is 200 mph.
	Then there is the question of capacity and demand. I imagined that HS2 had done a lot of detailed work on this point, so I wrote asking for current figures for the utilisation of west coast main line services as well as projected figures to 2035. The answer from HS2 was:
	“I am sorry but we do not have information on the current figures of WCML services. The Department of Transport may do.”

Cheryl Gillan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that Virgin is starting a major advertising campaign to attract people to travel on the west coast main line means that it can hardly have a capacity problem?

Jeremy Lefroy: I do. The first-class coaches are almost never full. Indeed, I have often seen one person per first-class carriage. It needs to make at least two of them standard class.
	I had also imagined that HS2 would be largely used by business travellers, so I was surprised to have the reply from HS2 stating that 70% of journeys on HS2 were expected to be for leisure purposes. I fully recognise the value of leisure travel to the economy, but where is the justification for an ultra-high-speed line, such as that which HS2 seems so determined to build, if 70% of those using it are doing so for leisure?

Andrew Bridgen: Does my hon. Friend recall that the initial estimates of capacity usage for HS1 were overestimated by 30%?

Jeremy Lefroy: Yes, and I fully understand the problems mentioned by some of my hon. Friends. We need to do something about that, but an ultra-high-speed line is not the answer.
	I come now to the business case for HS2. There has been a lot of argument about whether it is valid. I am not an expert in these matters, but there are several things that make me sceptical. The first is the apparent lack of knowledge at HS2 about current demand. The second is the surprising fact that HS2 is to be largely a leisure railway rather than a business railway. Since leisure passengers are much more sensitive to price
	than business passengers, especially premium business, I wonder whether this price sensitivity has been fully incorporated into the business case. The third reason is the large question mark over whether this is the right way to help the midlands and the north to develop. Just this week, plans were unveiled for a vast new commercial development at Old Oak common in London at the proposed junction of Cross Rail and HS2. I welcome that, but it underlines the concerns of those who worry that HS2 will simply bring more development into London, possibly at the expense of the midlands, the north and Scotland.
	Then there is the business case for the west coast main line after HS2 comes into service. The line will remain an essential part of our national transport infrastructure, so it is essential that its post-2035 business case be at least as strong as that for HS2, but I have not had that case from HS2, despite my asking for it. Given that HS2 is so dependent on leisure traffic, I am concerned about what will be left for the west coast main line. Clearly, there will be an increase in freight and some leisure, commuter and regional services, but will it be sufficient to maintain the line without very substantial subsidy? And if a subsidy will indeed be required, has that been factored into the business case for HS2?
	I fully support the comments made by north Staffordshire MPs about the real concern over the connectivity of Stoke-on-Trent, which is one of the top 10 conurbations in the country. I ask the Secretary of State to take that matter very seriously. On compensation, I entirely agree with those who support the idea of a property bond. That must be done. In France, people receive well over the market rate for their property, and everything goes through much faster. Let us be generous, as many Members have suggested.
	I have no pleasure in opposing the proposals before us. If this were a Bill to provide for additional capacity in the network by using existing corridors at a sustainable cost and without a fixation on ultra-high-speed trains, I would support it wholeheartedly, but I am afraid that it will achieve none of those things.

Stuart Andrew: I certainly welcome the Bill. For too long, we have been trying to move our 21st century population round the country on a transport system that was built by the Victorians. For too long, we have tinkered with the system—at a very expensive rate—to try to improve it, but that only brought disruption and did not solve the problem. We still have a major and pressing capacity problem that is simply not going to go away. It is going to get worse, and we ignore that fact at our peril.
	Routes that are crucial to counties, cities and towns such as Yorkshire, Leeds and Pudsey are going to be overwhelmed. We have already heard about the doubling of train journeys in the past 15 years. In 2011, during the morning peak, an average of 4,000 people had to stand as they travelled on the routes into Euston, and 5,000 had to do so on the routes into Birmingham. There are currently 115 passengers for every 100 seats, and the situation is going to get much worse. We need to act now to increase the capacity on our railways. As a
	country, we cannot afford to leave the economic future of cities such as Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham to an overcrowded railway that will be almost 200 years old by the time HS2 opens.
	If we are going to deal with the problem, why not be ambitious about it? Let us do it properly. Let us not tinker with it; instead, let us get back that Victorian foresight and ambition and make our railways something we can be proud of. The only way we can do that is by building a new line, so let us use the best technology and make it a high-speed line. After all, it is rather embarrassing that Turkey will soon have 1,500 miles of high-speed rail when we have just 67. HS2 will bring us the capacity that we need. It will double the number of seats between Leeds and Birmingham, it will transport the equivalent of the population of Cardiff every day, and it will run up to 18 trains an hour.
	Over the years of debate on HS2, those who are against it have said that it will have an impact on the regions that it is trying to serve, and that the money would be better spent on local services. But this is not an either/or; it has to be both and, frankly, it is both. The northern hub is being funded in full, the line between Manchester and Leeds is being electrified, and new stations are opening up all over the place. The core cities are predicting the creation of 400,000 jobs. During the construction phase alone, the project will provide more than 8 million pay packets. HS2 will also link our cities to help them to do business. At the moment, trying to get on a train going from Birmingham to Leeds is a nightmare. Let us see business working together in those two great cities. As we have heard, 70% of the jobs created will be outside London.
	We have heard about the costs and the business case, and I shall not repeat those points, but we need to maximise the potential. I welcome the decision to create a taskforce, led by Lord Deighton, to keep this major project on track. He has a great record in this area. We must ensure that British industry and the British work force are ready to deal with these changes. I want the best for my constituents. I want them to benefit from the best opportunities that the country has to offer, just as those in many constituencies in the south have been able to do. We cannot wait; this is urgent. Let’s get ambitious.

James Morris: If Members can agree on anything, it is surely that there is an urgent need to rebalance Britain’s economy away from over-reliance on London and the south-east, so that we can harness the full potential of the whole country. For too long, the black country and the wider west midland region were allowed to fall behind while other parts of the economy accelerated. Although the financial services bubble gave the illusion of economic growth, the black country saw relatively little of the benefit. Gross value added in Dudley and Sandwell fell from 88% of the national average in 1997 to just 74% in 2008. Now that our local economy seems to be getting back on track, we need to make sure that the recovery is sustainable, and we need to put in place the infrastructure to make sure that the west midlands is not left behind again. This Bill, and the project it allows for, is absolutely vital for the west midlands economy.
	Halesowen and Rowley Regis was at the heart of the industrial revolution. Our communities developed around the transport network of the day, and new links were built to transport our goods around the country. The position of the west midlands at the centre of the motorway network is still a huge advantage for transporting freight, but we need much better transport infrastructure to move people between Britain’s great cities. Great cities such as Birmingham and Manchester offer many advantages over the capital, but the reality for many companies is that much of their work will still need to be done in London, and they see the current rail network as an obstacle to effective business rather than as a way of getting from one location to another efficiently.
	Most of the focus has been on reducing journey times. Although this will be an important consideration for many businesses, for most of my constituents the key benefit of HS2 will be the increased capacity that the new line will offer. The rail network around the west midlands is quickly approaching bursting point, which would be catastrophic for businesses and for people just needing to travel across the country. The number of people travelling by rail to and from cities in the west midlands is increasing even more quickly than the national trend.
	My constituency is served by three mainline railway stations, with regular services to and from Birmingham. Our regional services have to share lines with the inter-city network, severely constraining the ability of either to expand to meet rapidly growing demand. Rail journeys to and from Birmingham have increased by 22% over the past five years, and for Coventry the figure is even higher at 30%.
	If there is a clear need for greater capacity across the core of our rail network, surely the only question is what form the extra lines should take—whether we build a new high-speed line across the country or expand the lines we have. Although I can understand why, on a superficial level, it might sound attractive to try to add extra capacity to old lines, this cannot be the best way forward in the long term. We have an ageing rail network, and HS2 would be the first major rail line built outside London for 150 years. During that time, plenty of lines have been taken out of service.
	Our economy is relying on a rail network that was largely designed around the needs of the mid-19th century. Given the cost of any expansion in capacity on the scale needed to meet future demand, why on earth would we opt to stick with a technology that would be nearly 200 years old by the time the new service was operational? If we are serious about building an effective rail network, and serious about rebalancing our economy, surely the only way forward is for us to invest in this infrastructure and allow our regional economies to compete and succeed.

Angie Bray: As is the norm with any major infrastructure project in this country, HS2 has provoked a massive debate and has become something of a national drama. I think it fair to say that Ealing and Acton has not exactly been immune from the debate, and that the project has had a bumpy ride in my patch. With a border to the north more or less marked out by the railway lines pinpointed to be the arteries taking the new trains in and out of London
	after they have passed through Old Oak common, it is undeniable that the proposal will have an impact on my constituency.
	Residents in north Acton, living right on the boundary between Ealing and Brent where the new Old Oak Common station would be, will be particularly affected by an estimated eight years of construction works. Some will also find themselves potentially living alongside the railway where it comes out from the tunnel. Obviously, it is not easy to allay genuine and legitimate concerns, but, first and foremost, compensation for those whose properties border or lie close to the track must be as generous as it is possible to be.
	Secondly, the onus will be on Ealing council and Transport for London to manage the arrangements in a way that keeps disruption to a minimum. I understand that some constituents fear that they will be almost completely trapped, and will be unable even to gain access to local shops or their doctors while the works proceed. That would be simply unacceptable. Alternatives such as extra bus routes around the works will have to be laid on, and effective traffic management will be essential.
	Concerns about mayhem around the Hanger Lane gyratory system while the line is being constructed, along with anxieties about the impact of an overground HS2 through parts of north Ealing, prompted a vigorous campaign by local residents who have demanded, at the very least, a tunnel between Old Oak Common and Northolt. Last year I wrote to the Secretary of State supporting their campaign, and I am delighted to say that that option appears to have met with his favour. We look forward to final confirmation.
	Nevertheless, as my constituents know—notwithstanding those local impacts and the opposition from campaigners further up the proposed line—I have long been a firm supporter of what I see as an ambitious and timely project. Given that I have campaigned loudly against a third runway at Heathrow and have used the “train not plane” argument, how could I not be? Central to this pledge was the logic that a new high-speed rail link improving north-south connections would dramatically reduce the need for the airlines to lay on so many short-haul domestic flights from some of our northern cities, which take up so much landing space at Heathrow. The HS2 concept, however, has always been more than just a buffer against the immediate third runway threat. It is a project for the future, and a rare example of a Government’s demonstrating genuine long-term vision—something that we should be encouraging.
	We know that existing services will be full to bursting point by the mid 2020s. We know that the demand is there and that we need to ease the pressure, so why not plan now? Sooner or later we will need the extra capacity, and if we wait for 10 years we will just be doing what we have to do now in a rush. In any case, I have always believed that a country that can be ambitious should be ambitious, and should seek to update its infrastructure in a timely fashion.
	High-speed rail makes sense, it will be needed in this country, and the proposals are achievable. I believe that as long as there is generous compensation—and I do mean generous—for all whose lives would be blighted, we should all get behind this project.

David Mowat: I support the Bill, but before I say why I support it let me give a number of reasons for not building this railway. We should not build it just because we have less high-speed track than any other country in the world. We could be right and those countries could be wrong, so that is not a good reason. We should not build it because the business case for HS1 to move to St Pancras was predicated on access to the north. We should not build it on environmental and carbon-related grounds: I think that those are rather difficult to justify, at a time when most electricity continues to be produced from fossil fuels. We should not even build it to try to rebalance infrastructure spending, which over the last decade has been 10 times higher per head in London and the south-east than in the north-west, and more than 10 times higher than in the north-east.
	We should proceed with this project if, and only if, three conditions exist: a robust business case, clear transformational benefits, and affordability in cash-flow terms, at about £2 billion a year. That £2 billion a year needs to kick in as Crossrail finishes, and I think that that is quite achievable. I cannot go into the business case in a great deal of detail, other than to say that the benefit-cost ratio remains higher than 2—about 2.5 for the full Y network—and is predicated principally on capacity arguments. The number of passengers on the west coast main line has been increasing at a rate of 5% a year for the last 15 years. This business case assumes an increase of only 1.6%, which is quite conservative.
	As for transformational benefits, some Members have said today that the northern cities could do better if they just invested in broadband, while others have said that northern cities do not understand that HS2 will cause all the jobs to be sucked into London. All that I can say to that is that the northern chambers of commerce do not agree. They have estimated that in the north-west it will produce some 40,000 extra jobs and £8 billion of incremental benefits, while KMCG’s Green Gauge report estimates that there will be about 50,000 extra jobs.
	I want to make a number of observations about the project. First, on the timing, 2032 is a long time ahead, and I am a little concerned that there is going to be a gap of over a decade before it goes to Birmingham and Manchester. That is a decade in which the northern cities will be put at a disadvantage—although prosperity will not, of course, stop in Manchester and Birmingham. I do not fully understand why we are not able to do more in the north earlier, in terms of the timing of the investment.
	It is important that the northern cities are linked not only to London but to Brussels and Paris. I do not fully understand the issues around the linkage and all that goes with that, but to do this project and not allow that to happen would be wrong.
	I also want to comment on a number of councils. We heard about Bradford no longer supporting the project, and I have heard Warrington council say it no longer supports it, because there is no station on its patch. Either this project has transformational benefits for the region and all of us in that region benefit, or it does not. My constituents in Warrington work in Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham and elsewhere. What matters
	to them is that we go some way towards fixing the north-south divide and getting prosperity much more evenly spread across the entire country.
	Finally, let me say that I commend this Bill and that I hope the House supports it tonight.

William Cash: I oppose this Bill on national and local grounds. I pay tribute to the people of Stone, Swynnerton, Whitmore and Madeley for the meetings we have had to discuss these matters, and I also pay tribute to the Country Land and Business Association and Stop HS2 for the back-up they have given at these meetings and in consideration of all these matters.
	I oppose the Bill for many reasons. The route will cut a swathe right the way through my constituency from top to bottom. I also agree very much with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) and my neighbour and good friend the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). I do not need to repeat their points. They have made them forcefully and so have many others, and they are right.
	The reality is that my constituents gain no benefit from this whatever. As has rightly been said, it is all pain and no gain. The unfairness of the current arrangements is so gross that it has to be rectified; there is a complete failure to understand that in the 21st century we must have a proper compensation arrangement if this Bill is to go through, as many predict.
	I do not believe the comments of the Public Accounts Committee can be in any way disputed, and as for the question of the amount of money involved, that is the biggest white elephant of all time. As has been noted, the amount has already gone up to £50 billion-plus, and I will not be surprised if it is £75 billion by the time this is finished. The reality is that this is a very expensive operation that is blighting people’s homes already in a way that is completely unfair, and it deserves to be discarded.
	On the question of compensation, the arrangements favour the acquirer so much against the claimant, and they do not even say how the compensation is to be calculated. As for the exceptional hardship scheme, three quarters of the applications have been rejected, as the Minister knows, and compensation is available only through a discretionary scheme.

Cheryl Gillan: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is nothing in this Bill that either pushes forward any compensation scheme or stops the Government continuing to pay compensation, and what we really want is the new consultation on compensation, which I hope the Department will launch as soon as tomorrow or the next day?

William Cash: I could not agree more. The fact is that the current arrangements for compensation are wholly inadequate to deal with this unique—and, I believe, appalling—scheme.
	We are also now pressing for a property bond scheme, which would underwrite the property values where this project has an adverse impact. That needs to be set up. Members will know that it is fear of the unknown that
	has the greatest impact on the property market. A property bond scheme would create stability in the market, and the idea has already been propagated by the BAA and Central Railway. The ideas are out there, and amendments will doubtless be tabled in Committee to show how such a scheme could work in practice; the argument can be made in more detail then.
	As far as I am aware, this scheme has no support whatsoever in my constituency. I have held many meetings in packed rooms and overflowing halls. At the end of them, I have asked, “Does anybody agree with the proposed scheme?” Only one person, who I think was from HS2 Ltd himself, said yes. The amount of very sensible opposition to the scheme is amazing.
	The west coast main line is a very good service. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford hit the nail on the head: it is available and can be improved. Extensions can be made to Euston to improve the availability of the service.
	The bottom line is that the whole scheme should be rejected. I shall vote against it with absolute determination tonight, and if we lose, we move on to the compensation arrangements. In fairness to the people who have been completely blighted and whose lives have been destroyed, we must have a property bond and proper arrangements. It is disgraceful.

Damian Collins: I rise to speak in favour of the Bill. This is a massively important piece of national infrastructure that will benefit us not just in the immediate decades after its completion, but for probably more than a century. Connecting the great cities of the north and midlands to London and the south-east, and to the continent through the channel tunnel, is an investment in our future. We should look at the benefit not just in ticket sales, but in the business regeneration that will take place across the network.
	The Secretary of State described the business situation in Kent, an issue that, as a Kent MP, I should like to touch on. It is impossible to imagine how east Kent can be regenerated without the benefits that High Speed 1 brings. I sit in meetings with the regeneration group that looks at the east Kent regional growth zone, and selling the benefits of High Speed 1 and the lower journey times into London is the single biggest advantage we have. As the Secretary of State pointed out, the HS1 line runs only as far as Ashford into London; the rolling stock running from Folkestone, Dover and Canterbury into Thanet is also a massive source of regeneration.
	None of us can know for certain what the future will bring—no more than when, nearly 30 years ago, this House debated the Channel Tunnel Bill. At that point, many Members spoke against it. Some said that we were living in the age of Concorde, and that international rail travel was not the future. The channel tunnel has outlasted Concorde and will be there for many more years to come. Back then, my predecessor, Michael Howard, championed the property blight issue. A compensation scheme was in place, but in fact people’s property prices actually went up, not down, as a result of the building of the channel tunnel rail link. People said at the time that it would be a drain, diverting business investment from the south-east to France, where
	it would be encouraged. In fact, that gateway is bringing business investment into the UK from France. People said that it would destroy jobs in Kent; in fact, it is creating jobs. As I said earlier, it would be impossible to imagine a job creation strategy for east Kent without the physical infrastructure of the channel tunnel.
	In the 1980s, Members said that they did not think there was a case for city-to-city rail travel, and certainly not through the channel tunnel, which would simply reduce journey times across the channel itself. Of course, there is now an enormous market for city-to-city travel: not just from London to Paris and Brussels, but soon opening up into Holland and Germany and to other locations in Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) pointed out in his very good speech the enormous benefit that rail freight infrastructure gains from investment in high-speed rail, and from the channel tunnel. The potential is enormous and evolving, and it will be the same with High Speed 2. I commend the Bill to the House.

Lilian Greenwood: As we have heard today from numerous hon. Members, the railways face an imminent capacity crunch. The lack of capacity is holding back growth and costing the taxpayer, as our existing infrastructure bears an ever heavier burden. Soon, on the west coast main line, the route will effectively be full. For passengers, this means overcrowded peak services, with many commuter trains regularly running at more than 150% capacity. I challenge anyone to use their travel time productively when they do not even have a seat to sit in. We need radical action to break through the logjam and provide additional connections between our major cities. That is why a new line is needed.
	HS2 is a project for the country as a whole; it is a new north-south rail line to connect our cities, slash journey times and release additional capacity for freight and passenger services. As a major infrastructure project, it can drive economic growth, attracting additional investment along the route while delivering jobs and skills. We have heard already today about the failure of this Government on infrastructure spending, which was down by nearly 40% in the past year. That makes it even more important that a new line is built, but there must be strong oversight on its delivery.
	A number of hon. Members have said that we should improve the infrastructure we already have. Of course, we must continue to invest in our existing network. We have always been clear that projects such as the northern hub must be complementary to a new line, but there are limits to what we can do with our current infrastructure. We have already spent more than £9 billion on the west coast upgrade. Hon. Members representing constituencies along the route will know just how disruptive that process was; indeed, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) described it as an absolute nightmare. Although that work made essential improvements, it did not provide the additional capacity needed to keep pace with passenger demand. As Network Rail has said:
	“The lack of capacity will become even more acute beyond 2024 as demand continues to grow. The most effective and best value for money way to create additional capacity will be through building a new line.”
	We must not look at passenger growth in isolation. The freight sector has enjoyed a decade of continual growth, but with limited additional paths available, there is a risk that freight operators will have to be turned away in the future. Any Government serious about climate change will want a growing rail freight sector to help reduce carbon emissions and congestion on our motorways. But the challenges facing freight underline the danger of treading water instead of delivering a new line.
	We also have to consider the improvements that can be made to passenger services. As a constituency MP, I know how overcrowded and slow the services between Nottingham and Birmingham can be, holding back a growing commuter route, and inadequate connections between our core cities are stopping commuter routes from developing at all. It can take more than two hours to travel from Nottingham to Leeds on existing services, but the new line should cut that journey time by two thirds.
	A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff), have suggested that high-speed rail will only benefit London, but that underplays the growth we have seen in regional traffic. From 2000 to 2010, passenger growth between Manchester and London was 70%, whereas between Manchester and Birmingham it was 105%. In addition, we must not forget that this project was driven forward, in part, by the regions. For example, Centro, the transport authority covering Birmingham, started to make the case for high-speed rail in 2008, before the last Labour Government became committed to the project.
	The Government have announced this week a regional growth commission, chaired by Lord Deighton. Ministers must ensure that local authorities have every opportunity to contribute to that review. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) rightly said, the Government must work with local bodies, including transport authorities and local enterprise partnerships, to maximise economic development and the benefits from released capacity. This is an area where the case has not been made strongly enough. So far, local media coverage has been dominated by HS2 Ltd’s suggestions for reductions to existing mainline services. That is a pity, because the released capacity and rolling stock could help enable more local services and even the reversal of some Beeching-era cuts, but Ministers and HS2 Ltd have not made that case. They must do so if the constituents of Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) are to be convinced.
	That is part of a wider problem. It sometimes feels like the project is being developed in isolation, with little regard for other transport needs. We know that we will not see a decision on a spur to Heathrow until the Davies commission reports, after the next election. We would have liked that decision to be made sooner.
	We are also concerned about the day-to-day running of HS2 Ltd, for which Ministers are ultimately responsible. A station redesign for Euston was announced with no prior warning or consultation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) spoke passionately on behalf of his constituents about
	that point and many others. New tunnels appeared for west London and the east midlands without clear information about how they would impact on the overall cost of the project.
	According to the National Audit Office, the Department for Transport and HS2 Ltd need to do more to make the business case for high-speed rail. There has been no information on the cost of tickets. The new line cannot be a rich man’s toy; all fares must be subject to regulation on the same basis as the rest of the network.
	We have also not had the commitments we would like on apprenticeships. We have said that an apprenticeship should be created for every £1 million spent, creating 33,000 apprenticeships over the lifetime of the construction project. A similar approach is training a new generation of skilled workers through Crossrail, and Ministers should build on the experience to ensure that apprenticeships and opportunities for young people are delivered as part of the new rail line.
	Many right hon. and hon. Members and their constituents have understandable concerns and questions remaining about compensation and I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us when he expects the new consultation on the subject to be announced. We need to make sure that we are getting value for money, especially as we are debating a spending Bill today for a project that has increased its preparatory budget from £773 million in 2010 to more than £900 million today. We will continue to press the Government on these issues in Committee.
	Let me recap. There are real questions that Ministers need to address. However, they are questions about how the project is being introduced, not about the need for it. We can meet our capacity challenges only through serious investment, and treading water is not an option.
	For too long we ran a 19th century railway on the 20th century principle of “make do and mend”. In an age of rising passenger demand, that is no longer enough. We are not managing decline; we are investing in the future. The proposed line will cover 330 route miles, directly linking most of our major cities and cutting journey times from others. It will improve transport links between England, Scotland and Wales, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) pointed out. It will meet or even exceed the standards of the rail infrastructure of our continental competitors. It will be a north-south rail line—one might even call it a one nation rail line.
	It would have been better to have introduced a hybrid Bill for the whole route, but at least this preparation or paving Bill does cover both phases. We will support the Bill as we want the project to succeed, and we will hold the Government to account as we go into Committee.

Simon Burns: This has been an extremely good and well-informed debate. A significant number of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members have spoken in support of High Speed 2 and this paving Bill, and a number, including a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends, have expressed their concerns and lack of support.
	I want to begin in a slightly unusual way by congratulating the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), and
	the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), on taking the view in the national interest that they will support the Bill tonight, as they supported it when they were in government. For that consistency, I congratulate and thank them.
	We heard a number of excellent speeches. I thought the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) was particularly relevant and interesting, because his constituency has the experience of High Speed 1. I also enjoyed the robust contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), who is clearly a keen and enthusiastic supporter of the project.
	I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and others who oppose the Bill and who have the preferred or proposed route going through their constituency that I understand what they are going through. I have considerable sympathy for them as constituency MPs and I admire they way in which they are rightly fighting for the interests of their constituents, but ultimately I believe that the national interest must come first, although we must do all we can to alleviate any problems that have been highlighted.

Andrew Bridgen: Will the Minister give way?

Simon Burns: I am sorry, but no. I have very little time and a lot to say to reply to the debate.
	In the comments made both by those who support the Bill and by those who oppose it, there was a common theme: we have to sort out the issue of compensation. I agree. We accepted the High Court’s decision in the only one of the 10 judicial reviews that we did not win that we should reconsult. That consultation on a comprehensive compensation scheme will begin shortly, and I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) and others that the options to be considered will include a property bond.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) and for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) asked that we say once again what the costs are. I will give those figures to the House now. For phase 1, it is £21.4 billion in 2011 prices, and for phase 2, it is £21.2 billion, making a total of £42.6 billion, which includes a contingency of £14.4 billion. The cost of rolling stock is £7.5 billion, of which £1.7 billion is the contingency fund.
	The debate has laid bare the fact that everybody wants the benefits that high-speed rail is set to deliver—new jobs, growth and prosperity for our country—but there are understandably some questions and concerns about how we realise those benefits. Those concerns are not unlike those that surrounded the construction of many of the now indispensable parts of our nation’s transport infrastructure, such as the M25, the Jubilee line extension to Canary Wharf and High Speed 1 itself. High Speed 2 is not a scheme being built for the future based on the travel behaviours of the past. We stand firm in our belief that High Speed 2 is the right choice for Britain in the 21st century, just as the railways were the right choice for Britain in the 19th century. Amazingly, back then, those opposed to the railway claimed that it would terrify country folk, turn cows’ milk sour, stop hens
	from laying and lead to an invasion of town folk into the country; and that travelling at speeds of more than 25 mph would cause the engines to combust and the passengers to disintegrate.
	The doubts of today are the only true hindrance to realising our vision and the benefits it will deliver, and I am sure that future generations will look back at these doubts in the same way as we look at the doubts of those opposed to railways in the 19th century—and, ironically and using a shorter time scale, the doubts that the people of Kent had in the 1980s and ‘90s, which they now totally reject. One of my hon. Friends mentioned that Maidstone successfully avoided having a station, which went to Ebbsfleet instead, and Maidstone is now begging to have a station because the town is losing out on the regeneration that a station delivers.
	High Speed 2 is a vision that we have to realise. Over the past decade, about half of economic growth has been concentrated in London and the surrounding regions. While High Speed 2 will shrink the distance between our great cities, the vision for High Speed 2 is to extend the benefits that it will deliver far beyond the actual network. We estimate that over 70% of jobs created by High Speed 2 will be outside London. High Speed 2 will redress the imbalance felt acutely by millions of people in different parts of the country. Britain cannot afford to burden the economies of great cities such as Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham with an overcrowded railway that will be almost 200 years old by the time that High Speed 2 opens and which has no spare capacity.
	It is time that Britain—the country that invented the railway—raised its aspirations and ambitions by building that world-class, high-speed rail network. I am confident that the House will recognise the core objective of High Speed 2 to create an engine for growth that will unlock massive potential and opportunities for UK cities such as Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield and others along the route. It will link eight of Britain’s 10 largest cities, serving one in five of the UK population. People will be able to travel from Edinburgh to London and back in the time that it takes to drive one way. The network will be fully integrated with the nation’s airports, with stations serving Manchester and Birmingham directly, an option for a spur to Heathrow, and short connections to East Midlands airport from Toton station, which is halfway between Derby and Nottingham. That will radically redraw the economic geography of the nation, bringing our cities closer together and rebalancing growth and opportunities. In doing so, High Speed 2 will rewrite the economic fortunes of this country.
	It is imperative that we do not delay the project, and the expenditure powers that we are seeking in the Bill will allow us to move forward with this ambitious investment in infrastructure. I have to say to right hon. and hon. Members that dithering is not an option if we want to maximise the economic potential of the country. By building High Speed 2, we will demonstrate that Britain still has the ambition and vision to build world-class infrastructure to support a world-beating economy. For those who do not believe that there will be acute regeneration around the stations and depots, I suggest that they go to Japan to see what has happened in places such as Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya, where there has been massive regeneration, with shops, leisure activities, hotels and businesses, not simply in the immediate vicinity of the stations but beyond in the wider community.
	We have to move forward to show that we still have ambition. At its heart, that is what HS2 is all about: jobs and growth—jobs and growth for this generation; jobs and growth for future generations. That is the legacy that the House is being asked to support today—a legacy that will support this nation’s zeal for hard work and its determination to succeed. We must have the courage and conviction to make bold decisions. We must be bold now, and it is for that reason that I urge right hon. and hon. Members to support Second Reading and to reject the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 37, Noes 325.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 62(2)), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 330, Noes 27.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read a Second time.

Andrew Bridgen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice on where the £10 billion of extra funding, which was announced for HS2, has come from. The House has divided on important matters without being aware of whether the extra £10 billion will come out of existing budgets—meaning the curtailment of existing projects—the deficit or the comprehensive spending review. I was keen to ask the Minister about that while he was at the Dispatch Box, but as you saw, Mr Speaker, he was keen not to answer my question.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I will deal with his second point first and his first point second. On his second point, I am
	sure he will appreciate that this is not a matter for the Chair. Some Ministers, when delivering winding-up speeches, are comfortable with taking interventions, depending on time considerations and other matters. Other Ministers decline to do so and are absolutely within their rights, so this is not a matter for the Chair. He may wish to pursue this matter in conversations with Ministers, and it is proper for him to do so. On the other point, that will come out in the course of debate over a sustained period. The hon. Gentleman will doubtless represent his constituents assiduously on the matter. We will leave it there, and we are grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

HIGH SPEED RAIL (PREPARATION) BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill:
	Committal
	(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
	Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
	(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 18 July 2013.
	(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Mr Syms.)
	Question agreed to.

HIGH SPEED RAIL (PREPARATION) BILL (MONEY)

Queen’s recommendation signified.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under or by virtue of the Act.—(Mr Syms.)
	Question agreed to.

Hybrid Bill Procedure
	 — 
	Amendment of private business standing orders

Andrew Lansley: I beg to move,
	That the following Standing Order (Private Business) be made:
	224A. “Comments on environmental statement
	(1) This order applies to any government bill in relation to which the Examiner decides Standing Orders 4 to 68 are applicable and in relation to which an environmental statement is required to be deposited under Standing Order 27A.
	(2) In this order:
	(a) “the relevant Minister” means the Minister of the Crown with responsibility for the bill;
	(b) “the environmental statement” means the environmental information originally
	deposited by the relevant Minister in relation to the bill for the purpose of Standing Order 27A;
	(c) “supplementary environmental information” means any additional environmental information deposited by the relevant Minister, after the deposit of the environmental statement, to supplement that statement for the purpose of meeting the requirements of any EU Directive relating to environmental impact assessment.
	(3) The notice published under Standing Order 10 in relation to the bill shall state that any person who wishes to make comments on the environmental statement should send them to the relevant Minister in such manner and on or before such date as shall be specified by the relevant Minister in the notice, that date being no earlier than the 56th( )day after the first publication of the notice.
	(4) For the purpose of Standing Order 224 paragraph (3) shall be treated as one of the Standing Orders compliance with which must be examined by the Examiner.
	(5) The relevant Minister shall, in such form as may be specified by the Examiner, publish and deposit in the Private Bill Office any comments received by him in accordance with this order and shall also submit those comments to the independent assessor appointed under paragraph (6) below. The relevant Minister shall deposit a certificate in the Private Bill Office setting out the date on which all comments have been received by the independent assessor.
	(6) (a) If the bill originated in this House and if comments are received on the
	environmental statement in accordance with this order:
	i. a report shall be prepared by an independent assessor summarising the issues
	raised by those comments;
	ii. the Examiner shall appoint the independent assessor within the period for commenting on the environmental statement prescribed by paragraph (3) above;
	iii. the assessor shall be instructed to prepare the report within such period as the Examiner shall specify, the end of that period being no earlier than the 28th( )day after the date certified by the relevant Minister, in accordance with paragraph (5) above, as the date on which the assessor received all of the comments from the relevant Minister;
	iv. before specifying a period in accordance with sub-sub-paragraph (iii) above, the Examiner shall consult the relevant Minister on the length of this period;
	v. the Examiner shall submit the report of the assessor to the House.
	(b) If a report is submitted to the House in accordance with sub-paragraph (a)(v) above, the Examiner has leave to submit the report of the assessor to the House of Lords.
	(7) If paragraph (6) above is applied, the bill shall not receive a second reading until at least 14 days after the report of the independent assessor on the comments on the environmental statement has been submitted to the House.
	(8) If any supplementary environmental information is deposited in relation to the bill:
	(a) it shall be prefaced with a statement that the information is being deposited as supplementary information under this order;
	(b) the requirements of Standing Order 27A in relation to the deposit of copies of the environmental statement shall apply to the supplementary environmental information;
	(c) copies of the supplementary environmental information shall be made available for inspection and sale at the offices prescribed by Standing Order 27A(6);
	(d) notice shall be published in accordance with Standing Order 10 (save in respect of dates) above stating that any person who wishes to make comments on the supplementary environmental information should send them to the relevant Minister in such manner and within such period as may be specified in the notice, the end of that period being no earlier than the 42nd day after the date of the first publication of the notice;
	(e) paragraphs (5) and (6) above shall have effect in relation to any comments received on any supplementary environmental information deposited in this House as they apply to comments received on the environmental statement and irrespective of the bill’s House of origin;
	(f) the examiner shall examine and report to the House whether or not paragraphs (8)(a) to (d) have been complied with and Standing Order 224 shall apply to that examination.
	(g) the bill shall not receive a third reading in this House or, if supplementary environmental information has been submitted before second reading, second reading in this House until at least 14 days after the assessor’s report on the comments on the supplementary environmental information has been submitted to the House.
	(9) At third reading of the bill the relevant Minister shall set out:
	(a) the main reasons and considerations upon which Parliament is invited to give consent to the project to be authorised by the bill;
	(b) the main measures to avoid, reduce and, if possible, offset the major adverse effects of the project.
	A written statement setting out this information shall be laid before this House not less than 7 days before third reading.
	(10) The costs of the assessor and also the costs of the process of appointing an assessor, incurred by the House by virtue of paragraphs (6) and (8)(e) above, shall be reimbursed by the government.
	(11) For the avoidance of doubt, any supplementary environmental information accompanying an amendment to a bill which, if the bill were a private bill, would require a petition for an additional provision shall be subject to paragraph (8) above and not paragraph (3) or (7) above”.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	That, in respect of any bill relating to High Speed 2 that is read the first time in Session 2013-14 and to which the standing orders relating to private business are found by the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills to apply, it shall be sufficient compliance with:
	(a) any requirement under those standing orders for a document to be deposited or delivered at, or sent to, an office of a government department, body or person if it is deposited or delivered at, sent to or otherwise made accessible at that office in electronic form;
	(b) any requirement under those standing orders for a document to be deposited with an officer if it is deposited with or delivered, sent or otherwise made accessible to that officer in electronic form;
	(c) any requirement under those standing orders for a document to be made available for inspection at a prescribed office, or to permit a document to be inspected, if it is made available for inspection at that office, or is permitted to be inspected, in electronic form;
	(d) the requirement under Standing Order 27(4) or 36(3) relating to private business to permit a person to make copies of a document or extracts from it, if there is provided to that person, on request and within a reasonable time, copies of so much of it as the person may reasonably require and such copies may, if the person so agrees, be provided in electronic form;
	(e) the requirement under Standing Order 27(4) relating to private business for a memorial to be made on every document deposited under that Standing Order, if the memorial is made on a separate document;
	(f) any requirement under Standing Order 4A(1), 27A(6) or 224A(8) relating to private business to make a document available for sale at prescribed offices, if it is made available for sale at an office in London.
	That this Order shall not affect any requirement under those standing orders to deposit any document at, or deliver any document to, the Private Bill Office or the Vote Office.
	That any reference in those standing orders to a document which is deposited, lodged, delivered or sent under those standing orders includes a reference to a document which is so deposited, delivered or sent in electronic form.
	That any reference to a document in this order includes a reference to any bill, plan, section, book of reference, ordnance map, environmental or other statement or estimate.

Andrew Lansley: As the House heard during the previous debate, the Government are introducing a hybrid Bill to Parliament later this year to allow consideration of whether the powers to construct, operate and maintain the HS2 scheme should be granted. Given the significance of this decision it will be clear to the House that it is essential that Parliament has the means in place to support effective decision making in relation to the Bill. However, it has been a while since the last hybrid Bill and some of the rules governing this process are now out of date. Therefore, the motions I am moving today will update this parliamentary procedure. If I may, I will explain them to the House. I believe that the House will not find them objectionable.
	On the motion for electronic deposit, the House may be aware that, along with the HS2 hybrid Bill later this year, we will provide Parliament with the environmental statement. This will set out the likely significant environmental effects of the scheme and put forward proposals for alleviating them. For a project of this magnitude, there is a considerable level of detail involved. We expect the statement to be up to 50,000 pages long. It is of course important that communities can easily find out what the impact will be on their local area. However, current Standing Orders require us to deposit a hard copy of that document to every local authority area along the line of route. It is estimated that each document would weigh up to 1 tonne in that form. In this day and age, that is inconvenient for the communities involved and wasteful of Government resources. That is why our first motion allows for the electronic deposit of bill documentation for the HS2 hybrid Bill. That will make it easier for communities across the line of route to find the information most relevant to their area without having to work through an enormous document. It will also make it easier for local authorities, including parish councils, to meet their obligations to make the information available for public inspection.
	It should also be noted that this is a permissive power. It does not require documents to be deposited in electronic format only. HS2 Ltd is clear that if a deposit location wants all the documents in hard copy, they can have them in hard copy. In all cases, HS2 Ltd will make
	available the key documents in hard copy, such as the Bill and the non-technical summary of the environmental statement.

Frank Dobson: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s clarification, because several people have raised with me the possible difficulties with the large maps, which, without sophisticated IT gear, can be difficult to reproduce. If HS2 will still be obliged to provide large maps in solid form, I will be pleased with the reassurance he has given.

Andrew Lansley: The right hon. Gentleman raises a sensible point. For most people with access to electronic equipment, navigating large documents is perfectly straightforward. In fact, it is probably easier to navigate documents of this length and complexity electronically than in hard copy. Not least, of course, it affords people the opportunity to focus on a local area or to do things such as word searches. I can confirm, however, that reasonable requests for hard copies of maps and section drawings will be met. These could be requested either from local authorities, which will be provided with hard copies for inspection, or directly from HS2 Ltd, which will provide A3 copies. It should further be noted that copies of all maps and sections will be available for inspection in both Houses. I hope that gives the right hon. Gentleman the assurance he was looking for.
	If a deposit location would like documents in electronic format, but does not have the equipment to make them available to the community, HS2 Ltd has committed to providing that equipment at its own expense. This is a wholly sensible modernisation of Standing Order requirements, which were originally conceived in the 19th century, and is about making it easier for people to engage with the hybrid Bill process and therefore ensuring the most effective decision making by Parliament.
	The second motion also relates to the environmental statement. It is vital that members of the public be made aware of these environmental effects and have an opportunity to comment. It is also important that the public’s views are shared with Parliament before it makes a decision on the principle of the Bill. That is why our proposed changes to Standing Orders will incorporate a formal consultation period for the environmental statement between introduction and Second Reading of the hybrid Bill. Although this follows the precedent of the Crossrail Act 2008, by enshrining this consultation in Standing Orders, we will improve the transparency and certainty of the hybrid Bill procedure.
	It should also be noted that the lack of a guaranteed consultation process has been raised in the courts. It is important that we are clear that the proceedings of the House should not be subject, as a consequence of that lack of clarity, to interference from the European Courts.

Cheryl Gillan: I certainly approve of the electronic tabling, because it strikes horror into my heart to think that there are at least 50,000 pages to the environmental statement, and we will need some way of navigating it, but what assurances can my right hon. Friend give me that HS2 Ltd will comply exactly with the Standing Orders? Surely, he needs to examine the time scale he has put into these amended Standing Orders, because 56 days is not enough time to examine 50,000 pages, minimum, of an environmental statement. It is only eight weeks.

Andrew Lansley: On my right hon. Friend’s first point, these are the requirements of the Standing Orders in relation to hybrid Bills, and the promoters of a hybrid Bill, and participants in that process, will be required to comply with them; otherwise, the quality of consideration will be put at risk. They will have to behave in a way that is consistent with what the House and the examiners of the Bill require.
	I will come directly to the second point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) made. The new Standing Order requires the appointment of an assessor to prepare a summary of the public’s comments. The independence of the assessor will be assured, because they will be appointed by Parliament and will report directly to it. That summary will make it easier for Members to appreciate and represent the views of the public when debating the principle of the hybrid Bill.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham has just pointed out, the length of the consultation period is set in the Standing Order at 56 days. To give that some context, the equivalent consultation period for projects pursued under the Planning Act 2008 can be as short as 28 days. That legislation covers projects of national significance such as new nuclear power stations, which are not intrinsically unlike HS2, given the level of debate that they can create and the significance of their environmental impact.

Frank Dobson: I recognise that I am getting into obscurantist territory with this point. I understand that the examiner of the hybrid Bill will be an Officer of the House, and that the assessor will be appointed by that Officer of the House and not by the House itself, which has, after all, demonstrated this evening that it is party to this matter.

Andrew Lansley: As far as I understand it, that is true. The examiner will appoint the assessor, and the assessor will report directly to Parliament. That appointment is not in the gift of the Government. The independence of the assessor is intrinsic to the process, and the role of the assessor is to summarise the views presented during the consultation. The assessor will use their technical expertise to present the environmental assessment issues in a form that Parliament can readily engage with. This is a parliamentary process; the assessor will be appointed by Parliament, not by the Government.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way again. This is an opportunity for us to probe and to find out exactly what this measure means. What remuneration will be paid to the assessor? Will they be remunerated by the House? Will there be any opportunity for Members to query, adjust, amend or request a revision of the report that the assessor puts forward to enable MPs better to understand the complexity of the environmental statement?

Andrew Lansley: On my right hon. Friend’s first point, I simply do not know what the remuneration arrangements are, but I will gladly write to her with that information. It is possible that the assessor will be paid by the Government, but as their appointment is not in the gift of the Government, I do not think that will impinge on their independence at all. As far as I am aware—I will certainly correct this if I am wrong—it will not be possible for anyone to have an impact on the assessor’s
	report. It will be the job of the appointed assessor to use their technical expertise to deliver the best possible representation of the public’s views, as reported to the consultation, in order to enable the House and the hybrid Bill Committee to engage fully with the process. The report will be made available before Second Reading.
	I was talking about the length of time being made available for the consultation period. It is worth noting that the consultation to which the new Standing Order relates will follow the consultation on the draft environmental statement that is currently taking place—it is running from 16 May to 11 July. So there will be two opportunities for the public to make their views on the environmental statement known. Taken together, that supports the view that 56 days is an appropriate period of consultation.

Cheryl Gillan: I think there is a misunderstanding about the consultation on the draft environmental statement. That consultation did not have to be carried out, but it is being carried out by HS2 Ltd. The consultation on the environmental statement that will appear at the same time as the hybrid Bill has to be carried out by the Government, and not by HS2 Ltd. I do not know what weight will be given to the previous consultation; indeed, it does not actually have to be considered at all.

Andrew Lansley: I think it is true to say that the draft consultation taking place now is not part of the formal processes, but that does not mean that the public will not have a significant opportunity to make their views known. Having the draft environmental statement as the subject of consultation now directly relates to my right hon. Friend’s point—that 56 days, the eight-week consultation period, does not come in, as it were, in relation to an environmental statement that has not been prefigured by the consultation on the draft. In any case, if those responding to the draft consultation feel strongly about those issues, they should make their views known in the consultation required under the Standing Order.
	For the sake of clarity, I was right that the Government are responsible for the remuneration of the assessor, but the amount of remuneration will be the product of a procurement process for the necessary expertise. I hope that is accurate and completes that thought. I hope that, notwithstanding the relative obscurity of these matters, the House will—[Interruption.] Does the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) want to intervene again?

Frank Dobson: Yes, I do, before the right hon. Gentleman sits down. It is not my intention to ask obscurantist questions, but it is my understanding that in the Appeal Court hearings—the Government won most cases and lost one—an undertaking was given, in the case that was lost, that the environmental assessment would look at all the alternatives to HS2, including different routes and also air, road and other alternatives. Will he confirm that that is the case?

Andrew Lansley: I had better enter the same caveat as I have on one or two other occasions: if I find I am in any sense wrong, I will correct what I say. My understanding is that the environmental statement that is the subject of this Standing Order is an environmental statement relating to the route proposed in the hybrid Bill. It is not an
	environmental statement that relates to a range of other options. But I will take advice, and if I am wrong I will correct that for the right hon. Gentleman.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the particular matter with which we are dealing tonight refers only to the environmental statement, and if so, how will other matters be dealt with? Secondly, in view of what he has just said, if we are dealing with environmental matters that relate only to the particular Bill that contains the particular route, how will alternative representations about the route be dealt with?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will have heard me just say that the Standing Order relates to the processes of the consultation on the environmental statement—it does not change the other processes affecting the hybrid Bill—so the rest of the Standing Orders relating to consideration of the hybrid Bill are, to that extent, unchanged. I will double check, but I think it is transparent that the environmental statement must of necessity relate to the hybrid Bill that is the subject of consideration by the hybrid Bill Committee. To what extent it needs, of necessity, to go beyond the precise considerations of the route, I do not know. [Interruption.] I am advised that the environmental statement will include reasonable alternatives considered to HS2, as required by the Standing Orders.

Angela Eagle: rose—

Andrew Lansley: The shadow Leader of the House is going to help us in any case, but I gladly give way to her now.

Angela Eagle: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. A non-technical summary states:
	“Strategic alternatives were those that did not involve high speed rail…Route-wide alternatives involved different layouts or operational characteristics for a high speed railway between London and the West Midlands”,
	and it states, too, that “local alternatives” also need to be considered.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. In any case, the new Standing Orders do not change the character of the environmental statement that is required. They simply make it plain that we are creating a transparent process whereby consultation must take place between the introduction of the Bill and Second Reading, and everyone must have an opportunity to see the assessment before Second Reading. In that respect, this is a clear improvement on the hybrid Bill process in respect of the prospective HS2 Bill.
	I commend both motions to the House.

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for his explanation of the changes in the Standing Orders for the purposes of this hybrid Bill. He was right to observe that hybrid Bills are rare. We have not had one since we embarked on the Bill that became the Crossrail Act 2008, eight years ago. He was also right to observe that some of the rules governing this procedure are out of date, and could do with a bit of modernisation. I accept that the motions seek to do just that for the purposes of this particular hybrid Bill and no others.
	The changes in the Standing Orders are being made first in respect of the electronic deposit of information, and secondly in respect of the process for consulting on the environmental statement, which will form a vital part of consideration of the Bill when it finally appears. I have no objections in principle to either of the changes that the Leader of the House is suggesting, but I should like to probe him a bit about them.
	We are told that, in the coming year, a hybrid Bill will be presented to Parliament which will grant the powers that will allow the HS2 scheme to begin. Will the Leader of the House be a little more forthcoming about when we are likely to see it appear, along with the final environmental statement? Will we see it during the current calendar year, or during the current parliamentary Session? Is the Leader of the House confident that, even if the Government are able to publish the Bill in the next year, it will be completed before the next general election? After all, this is a huge and complex undertaking which has generated a great deal of opposition. If it takes as long to produce this Bill as it took to produce the much smaller and less controversial Crossrail Bill, it would not be completed until December 2016 even if we embarked on it today. Given that the Leader of the House schedules House business, it would be interesting to hear from him when we are likely to see the Bill and the environmental statement.
	The publication by the Secretary of State for Transport of a draft environmental statement and a design refinement consultation document in May was a welcome development which will assist the consultation process, and we have just made a decision on the initial stages of the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill itself, but we still have a long and complex way to go in the hybrid Bill procedure. It makes no sense to undertake a complex consultation procedure on a complex and controversial project such as HS2, only to discover that there are plenty of opportunities for legal action and for further uncertainty or delay because the consultation mechanisms used did not comply with best practice, or indeed—as the Leader of the House hinted—with the EU directive on environmental impact assessments. If the changes outlined by the Leader of the House mean that that risk has been mitigated, I agree that we should support them. Of course it is desirable in principle for those affected to be made aware of the position in a timely fashion, and to have a chance to comment before Parliament makes a decision.
	The Leader of the House explained that the HS2 hybrid Bill would be accompanied by an environmental statement. He also revealed that he expected this to run to 50,000 pages. That is the equivalent of 33 copies of Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” rolled into one, although I am sure that it will be a more interesting read. The environmental statement accompanying the Crossrail Bill was only 2,700 pages long. As the Leader of the House noted, once a copy of the statement has been deposited with each of the authorities along the route, as dictated by the current Standing Order, the weight of the documents will be over a tonne, which is apparently the weight of 17 large trees. Opposition Members agree that it is sensible, in this particular case, to make provision for the electronic deposit of the environmental statement. Reassurances were needed, but the Leader of the House very properly supplied them during his speech. I was grateful to the Leader of the House for making it clear that if a deposit location wishes to have the documents
	in hard copy, they will be provided by HS2 Ltd, and that the key documents will also be made available in hard copy. I hope that that will provide suitable reassurance that there will be fair access to the documents.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) has rightly highlighted that some key components of the environmental statement are not well-suited purely to online publication. Detailed diagrams and maps are often less accessible in online form, and I appreciate—as I hope my right hon. Friend does—the fact that the Leader of the House has been able to put on the record that those maps and large documents will be made available in all formats, including in hard copy if that is required. That will ensure that the maps are deposited in libraries and other public buildings along the route and are accessible, so people can check whether they will be affected.
	It is also vital that the online publication of the environmental statement is accessible to those who wish to access it. Concerns have been raised in the past about information on both the HS2.org.uk and the data.gov.uk websites being hard to find, and difficult to navigate when located. When the statement is published, it should not be hidden on some obscure corner of the internet. I hope the Leader of the House agrees on that.
	We welcome the announcement of a 56-day consultation on the environmental statement—although some speed-reading may be required, as the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) has said. That is, however, a practical and sensible proposal, although I ask the Leader of the House to ensure that this consultation will not mean that the wider consultation on HS2 will be reduced. I would appreciate the Leader of the House’s reassurance on that point.
	While we support the proposals in relation to the HS2 hybrid Bill, we need to be cautious about this setting a precedent. While documents should always be published accessibly online, it is crucial that we still aim to publish and deposit hard copies for future, perhaps less complex, Bills.

Cheryl Gillan: I would like answers to all the questions the shadow Leader of the House has so rightly asked about these standing orders and the alterations. This is a particularly tortuous and complex process, and because it so tortuous and complex, it is neither accessible nor transparent to the stakeholders and the people who are affected by it. They must be able to understand what is required of them. I therefore ask the Leader of the House to consider how he is going to produce explanatory notes on this hybrid Bill process and these changes to standing orders, and make them available, particularly to those people who have been part of the consultations and the community forums up and down the line, but also to the environmental organisations, many of whom contain volunteers and others who are not familiar with our practices and procedures here, and who certainly have no idea of how to navigate their way around the hybrid Bill process.
	I would like to know the date when the hybrid Bill and the environmental statement will be deposited, because it now appears that we are going to have
	50,000-plus pages in this environmental statement, which amounts not so much to 17 large trees, but more to 17 large white elephants, to refer to the symbol that has been adopted by many of the anti-HS2 groups up and down the line. Making that date known will enable organisations throughout the country—many of which have very scarce resources or rely on voluntary contributions—to plan how to deal with this better. I am worried that moving to electronic tabling for something as large as this may cause technical problems. What checks will be made on the IT systems of local authorities up and down the line where these documents will be deposited, to establish that those systems can take these documents and people can navigate them with ease? It is all very well talking about making documents available electronically; when I was looking at the Department for Transport’s business statement today on the No. 10 website, it was almost impossible to navigate or download it in a timely fashion. That business plan was not very long, but if that is the standard the Government set for the ease of navigating documents, it does not reflect well on their IT systems. We need to know that full checks have been made of those systems, and that they can take the documents in question.
	I do not want to prolong the debate and I will not seek to divide the House on this issue—these are Standing Orders—but I would like two reassurances. First, if a significant number of the environmental organisations that will need to engage in this process ask for an extension to the 56-day deadline, I want the Leader of the House to undertake at least to listen to them and to consider an extension.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The shadow Leader of the House told us that the environmental statement for Crossrail extended to some 2,500 pages. This statement will extend to some 50,000 pages. Does my right hon. Friend really think that 56 days is a practical amount of time in which to examine that amount of material?

Cheryl Gillan: No, and that is why I am asking the Leader of the House whether, after taking advice from organisations that need to examine the document in detail, he will consider extending the deadline, or whether it would be possible to change the Standing Orders to that end. A standard consultation period, as under the last Government, was deemed to be 12 weeks. The Government have concertinaed it and seem to be adopting an eight-week standard, which is not satisfactory when we are dealing with something as precious as an area of outstanding natural beauty such as the Chiltern hills. Many details will need to be examined once the statement is forthcoming, and I would like to know what the various possibilities are.
	At a time when we are cutting budgets and expecting local authorities and other organisations to cut back in the interests of paying down the debt left to us by the last Labour Government, what funds will be available to our local authorities to maintain and make available these documents through electronic means? There may have to be extra IT maintenance and people on duty. I need to be able to reassure my own local authorities that they will not be out of pocket as a result of something imposed on them by central Government.
	I shall leave it there and look forward to hearing the Leader of the House’s response.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) for their contributions to this short debate.
	In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, the Government intend to introduce the Bill by the end of this year. [Interruption.] My apologies—yes, the calendar year. On the question of further consideration and the progress of legislation, particularly where a hybrid Bill is concerned, these are matters for the House, but we intend to secure Royal Assent by the end of this Parliament.
	I apologise for not clarifying earlier that the change to Standing Orders applies to all hybrid Bills, so it would apply to any future one in the same way. That is good because, of course, one issue we want to set out is that there is transparent clarity about the process, and we are entirely consistent with any European requirements in relation to consultation on the environmental statement. The motion on electronic deposit relates to this Bill and if such a thing were required in relation to a future Bill, a further motion would be required in order to make that permissive power available.
	As for what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham said, I will not reiterate the points I made about the length of consultation and the fact of the availability of the draft environmental statement for consultation now, in addition to the Standing Order requirements for a consultation later on. Taken together, when we make the comparison with the consultations required for other major projects under planning legislation, we see that this is an entirely appropriate period of consultation. She makes a good point about ensuring that those engaging with this process can do so effectively. As was the case with Crossrail, hybrid Bill information papers will outline the process. I know, as the House authorities will know very well, that the House will provide advice on petitionings.
	My right hon. Friend also asked me about the costs for local authorities. We have made it clear that HS2 Ltd will cover IT costs for local authorities. The requirement on public availability is a long-standing one that this amendment does not change. The new Standing Orders before the House do not change that requirement in relation to local authorities, but, as I say, it has been clear throughout that the IT costs for local authorities will be covered by HS2 Ltd. I hope that that helps to clarify a few of the points raised in the debate, and I continue to commend the motions to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.

Electronic Deposit Of Documents (High Speed 2)

Motion made and Question put forthwith (Order of 24 June),
	That, in respect of any bill relating to High Speed 2 that is read the first time in Session 2013-14 and to which the standing orders relating to private business are found by the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills to apply, it shall be sufficient compliance with:
	(a) any requirement under those standing orders for a document to be deposited or delivered at, or sent to, an office of a government department, body or person if it is deposited or delivered at, sent to or otherwise made accessible at that office in electronic form;
	(b) any requirement under those standing orders for a document to be deposited with an officer if it is deposited with or delivered, sent or otherwise made accessible to that officer in electronic form;
	(c) any requirement under those standing orders for a document to be made available for inspection at a prescribed office, or to permit a document to be inspected, if it is made available for inspection at that office, or is permitted to be inspected, in electronic form;
	(d) the requirement under Standing Order 27(4) or 36(3) relating to private business to permit a person to make copies of a document or extracts from it, if there is provided to that person, on request and within a reasonable time, copies of so much of it as the person may reasonably require and such copies may, if the person so agrees, be provided in electronic form;
	(e) the requirement under Standing Order 27(4) relating to private business for a memorial to be made on every document deposited under that Standing Order, if the memorial is made on a separate document;
	(f) any requirement under Standing Order 4A(1), 27A(6) or 224A(8) relating to private business to make a document available for sale at prescribed offices, if it is made available for sale at an office in London.
	That this Order shall not affect any requirement under those standing orders to deposit any document at, or deliver any document to, the Private Bill Office or the Vote Office.
	That any reference in those standing orders to a document which is deposited, lodged, delivered or sent under those standing orders includes a reference to a document which is so deposited, delivered or sent in electronic form.
	That any reference to a document in this order includes a reference to any bill, plan, section, book of reference, ordnance map, environmental or other statement or estimate.—(Mr Syms.)
	Question agreed to.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Criminal Law, Northern Ireland

That the draft Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of duration of non-jury trial provisions) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 8 May, be approved.—(Mr Syms.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Police, Northern Ireland

That the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Code of Practice) Order 2013 (S.I., 2013, No. 1128), dated 14 May 2013, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14 May, be approved.—(Mr Syms.)
	Question agreed to.

PETITION
	 — 
	Skateboarding Southbank

Kate Hoey: I have great pleasure in delivering to Parliament and presenting a petition of 40,000 signatures in support of retaining the skateboarding area in the Southbank Centre in my constituency, just
	across the river. A number of groups have been collecting signatures, and the Save Southbank Skate Park group presented this petition to me and the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) last week. Since then, there has been another petition of 20,000 signatures, which I have not yet been able to get together to present.
	This is a culturally and historically important area of the south bank. The Southbank Centre has some very new plans, which everybody wants to see happening, except that it has not engaged with and involved the skateboarders, and it wants them to move to an area which would not be one that they had built up themselves. The centre wants to have its restaurants where the skateboarders are, and many people feel that the restaurants could be where it wants to take the skateboarders. Whatever the situation is, my petition is very clear: some 40,000 people, and many more, want to retain skateboarding in the south bank. May I also say that it is good to see the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), who has responsibility for the arts, in his place.
	The petition states:
	To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
	The Humble Petition of users and fans of the Undercroft skateboard area,
	Sheweth,
	That it has been the home to British skaters and riders for over 40 years but is threatened by development.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House take all steps to urge the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that the Southbank Centre preserves this facility in its development plans.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	[P001189]

Lindisfarne Gospels

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Nicky Morgan.)

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I thank Mr Speaker for granting this debate, which is particularly time-sensitive. It is good to be able to have the debate in advance of the Lindisfarne Gospels’ return to Durham.
	Let me start by explaining why there is so much excitement in the north-east and Durham, where the Gospels are to be exhibited, about the temporary return of the Lindisfarne Gospels to our region. The book is simply a stunning masterpiece of early mediaeval European book painting and the beautifully illustrated manuscript represents the pinnacle of achievement of Anglo-Saxon Northumbrian art at the end of the seventh century.
	The Gospels book was made on the holy island of Lindisfarne and was probably written between St Cuthbert’s death in 687 AD and the death of Eadfrith, Bishop of Lindisfarne, who was identified as the artist and scribe of the book by Aldred, the provost of the monastic community of St Cuthbert at Chester-le-Street. A recent study suggested a date for the Gospels of between 710 and 720 AD.
	The making of the book required time, dedication and the invention of new tools and materials. With no modern technology at his disposal, Eadfrith is credited with inventing some of his own gadgets to help. Professor Michelle Brown, an expert in mediaeval manuscript studies at the University of London’s schools of advanced study, stated that Eadfrith
	“was a technical innovator who invented the pencil and the light box in order to achieve his complex artistic and social vision”.
	The book is the oldest surviving translation of the gospels into the English language, but it is worth recognising that the Lindisfarne Gospels’ intricate and symbolic artwork helped convey its message to those who could not read. The Gospels were created at a time of great change when Britain was a land of many cultures that were coming together into an emerging national identity. The manuscript is inspired by all the different peoples who lived in these islands at the time: Britons, Picts, Celts and Anglo-Saxons, along with those of Mediterranean and middle-eastern cultures.
	Another extraordinary aspect of the Gospels is that unlike most early mediaeval books this one has come to us in almost perfect condition. That is, frankly, remarkable, considering that it was written about 1,300 years ago and the eventful journey it has been on ever since.
	The first Viking raid on Britain struck Lindisfarne in 793 AD. After nearly 100 years of continuing raids, the monastic community abandoned Lindisfarne in 875, taking with them the body of St Cuthbert, the Gospels and other important relics. The Lindisfarne community is believed to have travelled around for seven years before eventually settling at the priory at Chester-le-Street, where they stayed until 995. They then moved to Durham priory with the relics of St Cuthbert, after the dead saint revealed to one of the monks where he wanted his new resting place to be.
	In 1069, the Lindisfarne Gospels spent a short time back at Lindisfarne to escape the devastating raid on the north by William the Conqueror. The book was
	then returned to Durham. In 1104, St Cuthbert’s body and other monastic treasures from Lindisfarne were moved to the splendid new cathedral at Durham. However, in 1536 the dissolution of the monasteries was ordered by Henry VIII. The priories of Lindisfarne and Durham were broken up and the Gospels were believed to have been seized by the King’s commissioners.
	By the early 17th century, the Lindisfarne Gospels were owned by Sir Robert Cotton. Cotton’s heirs presented the book to the nation and it became part of the founding collections of the British Museum in 1753. In 1973, the Lindisfarne Gospels became part of the British Library, their current permanent resting place.
	This is only the fifth time the Gospels have been loaned since coming into the hands of the British Museum and later the British Library. Except for a museum evacuation during world war two, all the loans were for major library and museum tours undertaken within the past 50 years: at the Royal Academy in 1961, in Durham cathedral in 1987, and at the Laing art gallery in Newcastle in 1996 and 2000. It took nearly two years of negotiations, planning, organisation and effort to bring the Gospels to the region on the last two visits. On the first day of the exhibition, almost 3,000 people came along to see the Gospels, which demonstrates huge interest from the region.
	What has happened since the last visit? A condition survey by the British Library in 2004 suggested that it might be difficult to move the Gospels again, but the findings of the survey were far from conclusive. There followed a fervent campaign, led first by the Northumbrian Association—I take the opportunity to thank the late John Danby for his work; he is much missed—and by my hon. Friends the former Member for Houghton and Washington East, Fraser Kemp, Baroness Quin, the former Member for Stockton South, Dari Taylor, my hon. Friends the current Members for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and for North Durham (Mr Jones), and me.
	I first raised the question of what was to happen to the Gospels when I was elected in 2005 and put down an early-day motion on the subject. I then wrote to key agencies, including the British Library, Durham cathedral and museum services. We constantly badgered the British Library to consider a permanent move for the Gospels to the north-east, and if that was not possible we called for a temporary move. We also lobbied our Government on the matter, and the then culture Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), intervened on our behalf. It was difficult, but that lobbying persuaded the British Library to commission an independent expert review into the future of the Gospels in 2006. In 2009, the panel reported back, recommending that, with great care, the books could be loaned for three months every seven years.

Mary Glindon: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. She will be aware that the fabulous collection of Roman gold and silver known as the Backworth hoard is in the north-east for the first time in 200 years, on loan from the British Museum. Does she agree that such exhibitions and the fact that the Lindisfarne Gospels will be allowed to come to us every seven years shows that our region has the skills, expertise and knowledge to host our most treasured national items?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will talk about what skills the region has to support the Gospels.
	The review set out the conditions and criteria that would need to be met for the Gospels to be loaned out, to preserve the quality and condition of the book. It was agreed in 2009 by the British Library and the Association of North East Councils that Durham would be the first place the Gospels visited under the new arrangements. It took some time and forbearance, but we are all pleased that all the partners exhibiting the Gospels in the north-east for three months from this weekend, especially Durham university and Durham cathedral, managed to persuade the British Library that suitable conditions in the north-east could be created to house the Gospels adequately.
	The exhibition has been made possible by the close partnership working between the British Library, Durham cathedral, Durham county council and Durham university, as well as the long-standing and continued support from parliamentarians. Together with the Lindisfarne Gospels, the British Library is lending five other precious manuscripts for the exhibition, including the 7th century St Cuthbert Gospel. These manuscripts and artefacts have not been seen together since the Reformation, and they will be exhibited in the newly refurbished Wolfson gallery in the Palace Green library of the University of Durham. The university is to be commended for the simply amazing space it has created to show the Gospels.
	The British Library has worked closely with the university and the cathedral to ensure that the Palace Green library meets the requirements for lending the Lindisfarne Gospels for exhibition display, and that that complies with the report by the panel of independent experts. The exhibition is the centrepiece of the festival around the Lindisfarne Gospels, and we hope that it will attract many people to the history and heritage of the region, as well as the Gospels themselves. To that end, I am grateful to the Heritage Lottery Fund for providing a grant of £487,000 to Durham university.

Guy Opperman: I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate, and may I register on behalf of Government Members the total support of the whole House for the campaign that she and many others have conducted for many years? Does she agree that this is a good example of the north-east working together for something that we all treasure and that there is no finer tourism opportunity this summer?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I agree entirely, and it is excellent that we have been able to achieve cross-party support to bring the Gospels back to the region on temporary loan. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
	I thank the Heritage Lottery Fund for its grant, which has helped the university to run an outreach project alongside the exhibition. The manuscript is one of the most important books in the British Library’s collection, but it is also a treasure of world culture, and it is a symbol of our region’s proud past and the cultural legacy that it has created for the nation. That was recognised by the Prime Minister, who when visiting Northern Ireland in 2011 described the Lindisfarne Gospels as “a British national treasure”.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this important matter to the House for consideration. She, the Prime Minister, many others in the House and I have called the Gospels a national treasure because they are one of the most important pieces of informative history in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Does she agree that such is the historical importance of the Lindisfarne Gospels and the interest that they create across the whole of the United Kingdom that opportunities should be given to all regions, including to Northern Ireland, to see them?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree: it would be wonderful for the people of Northern Ireland to have the opportunity to see the Lindisfarne Gospels and other important historical texts in the region too.
	Bearing in mind the Prime Minister’s comments, I should be grateful if the Minister said whether his Department will continue to support the loan of the Gospels to the north-east region on a regular basis, and whether the Government will encourage the Heritage Lottery Fund to give access funding to the Gospels exhibition so that not only schools but everyone attending the exhibition can view the Gospels free of charge, just as tourists and others can do in the British Library. I believe that that is particularly important, given that the north-east is the country’s poorest region. Having to pay a charge to see the Gospels does not seem to be entirely fair. It is fantastic, however, that the British Library has agreed to lend the Lindisfarne Gospels to Durham this summer so that they can be displayed in the north-east and many people in the region and elsewhere will have an opportunity to see them.

Chi Onwurah: I apologise for being late for the debate. As my hon. Friend has no doubt mentioned, the last time that the Gospels came to the north-east they came to the Laing art gallery in Newcastle. Does she agree that enthusiasm for their return and the campaign waged by many Members for that return shows the value that the north-east places not only our cultural heritage but on the arts more broadly?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Ian Lavery: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) on bringing this important debate to the Floor of the House. Like my hon. Friend, I am delighted to see the return of the Lindisfarne Gospels nearly to their rightful home. I say “nearly” tongue in cheek, because really the Gospels belong to the beautiful island, Holy island, in Northumberland.
	The Gospels were made on the holy island of Lindisfarne in Northumbria. The book was probably written at some time between St Cuthbert’s death in 687 and the death in 721 of Eadfrith, bishop of Lindisfarne, who was identified as the artist and the scribe of the book. The Gospels’ last visit, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) correctly pointed out, was a tremendous success. It was in 2000,
	and on the first day the Gospels attracted almost 3,000 people, which was fantastic. I hope that that will be repeated or even surpassed when the Gospels come to Durham later this year.
	I feel the need to raise a couple of points with regard to artefacts including the Gospels, their accessibility to people throughout the country, and fairness. The first point was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham when she said how difficult it was to arrange even a temporary loan of the Gospels. For many years the British Library flatly refused to allow any temporary loan of such a valuable asset to the north-east. That upset many people in our region. The people in the north-east see the Gospels as theirs and were offended by the attitude of the British Library.
	Given that these treasures belong to the people of the whole country, there should be a much greater requirement on the national museums to loan artefacts such as the Gospels to regions such as the north-east. Museums do loan some artefacts and materials, but they are generally stuff, as they see it, of lesser importance. They make people jump through hoops and over hurdles in order to secure the loan of artefacts such as the gospels, even on a temporary basis. The British Library should not expect people to travel from the likes of the north-east to London to see these artefacts. It should bear in mind the distance and the cost, and the priority of people who want to see them. We have world-class museums in the north-east region, and facilities such as Woodhorn museum in my constituency—a first-class museum that is perfectly capable of housing artefacts such as the Gospels.
	My second point is a simple one. Why are the national museums in London? There are a few outposts, such as York, but generally the national museums are in London. Again, I emphasise that they are inaccessible to many of the people whom I represent and many in my region. We should be looking at outposts up and down the country. The comprehensive spending review today could spell dangerous times and possibly even the end for many museums throughout the country. Rather than seeking funds to extend or refurbish the London sites, why do the national museums not create new outposts, possibly even within existing museums, to ensure that people across the nation can see the treasures that they want to see, and experience what other people are experiencing? Why cannot the British Library, for example, establish a base in Northumberland or Durham where items such as the Gospels could be displayed without leaving the Library’s care?
	We are delighted to celebrate the Gospels’ return to the north-east and also the exhibition that accompanies them, which has provided inspiration for a number of local groups to engage with their cultural heritage. Without being too negative, I simply say that we should make sure that these cultural artefacts are accessible to people up and down the country, regardless of how much they have in their back pocket.

Edward Vaizey: It is a pleasure to respond to the debate, which was secured by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) and has been so ably contributed to by the hon. Member
	for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and other Members who intervened. The debate is about the best way to display the Lindisfarne Gospels and the work that has gone into ensuring that they are displayed regularly in the north-east.
	Let me begin by taking up the challenge set out by the hon. Member for Wansbeck on the need for our national museums to work more closely with organisations and museums outside London. Having spent this morning debating the future of the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester, which is part of the Science Museum Group, and having spent most of last week debating the future of the National Media Museum in Bradford, which is also part of the Science Museum Group, I can only say that I wholly concur with the sentiments he expressed. We need to do much more with our national museums to ensure that the regions are not seen as somehow second class, that national museums, wherever they are located, are on an equal footing with those in London, and that the quality and expertise that exist in national museums outside London and our major regional museums are as good as any to be found in London.
	I certainly hear the hon. Gentleman’s point about having to jump through hoops and hope that we can continue to encourage and work with our national museums to share much more of the national collections around the country, because they are national collections and deserve to be seen by everyone across the United Kingdom. His point was well made. I think that the north-east—I might be inviting an intervention on this point—is enjoying a bit of a renaissance. For example, I was delighted by the recent decision to save the Zurbarán paintings and by the moves to turn the bishop’s palace in Bishop Auckland into a major cultural destination site.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Will the Minister give way?

Edward Vaizey: I knew that would prompt an intervention.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: In praising the north-east and the wonderful facilities we have for exhibiting and conserving documents such as the Lindisfarne Gospels, it was remiss of me not to invite the Minister to visit Durham and see the exhibition himself.

Edward Vaizey: In preparing for the debate, the thought did occur to me: “How on earth can I resist if an invitation is made?” As someone who occasionally spends his summer holidays in Newcastle, I would be only too happy to visit the Gospels displayed in Durham cathedral and also to go to Lindisfarne, with a suitable escort—the hon. Member for Wansbeck clearly thinks that if he keeps his head down he will not have to come with me.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Member for City of Durham for her campaigning. She acknowledged in her remarks the work done by the noble Baroness Quin when she was a Member of this House. I was delighted to hear that she is pleased with the current arrangements, but that does not mean that she will not continue to push for better arrangements from her perspective. It is important to stress that the British Library operates at arm’s length from the Government, but as the hon. Lady indicated, it is not unheard of for Arts Ministers
	occasionally to engage in what today is known as the nudge agenda in order to encourage our national institutions to do the right thing.
	I could wax lyrical in the time remaining about the importance of the Lindisfarne Gospels. They are one of the world’s great treasures. They help us interpret Britain in a time of change. They are known the world over. Indeed, I was speaking only this afternoon with a friend visiting from New Jersey who is a great fan of the Gospels. It is worth remembering that in this age of digital technology, we have the chance to share the beauty of the Lindisfarne Gospels with not just the United Kingdom but the whole world, particularly through the British Library’s “turning pages” technology.

Mary Glindon: rose—

Edward Vaizey: I do not know whether it is the mention of New Jersey or technology that has prompted the hon. Lady’s intervention; I shall wait and see.

Mary Glindon: My intervention is about the Minister’s mention of sharing the Lindisfarne Gospels the world over. Given that they have such massive heritage importance to the north-east and the world, is it not a shame that people will be charged to see them when they are on display in the north-east?

Edward Vaizey: I note the hon. Lady’s point, but I am delighted that schoolchildren will get the opportunity to see the Lindisfarne Gospels for free and that the Government have maintained their policy of free access to the national museums. It may be difficult at this stage to allow free access to the Gospels, but given that we are now on a seven-year cycle, perhaps my successor could look at the issue in 2020.
	The key point about the seven-year cycle is that the Lindisfarne Gospels are part of the national collection and of international significance. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, many other parts of the United Kingdom would welcome the opportunity to see them. The British Library should maintain ownership and curatorial control of the gospels, so that other parts of the country may see them in future.
	As the hon. Member for City of Durham pointed out, we have made great progress. Since the Lindisfarne Gospels came into the national collection in 1753, they have been removed only five times. They were evacuated during world war two and subsequently moved as far as the Royal Academy for display. The three other times since then have also been when they have been displayed—once in Durham and twice in the Laing art gallery in Newcastle. Now, of course, they are going back to Durham.
	The page openings that will be on display in Durham are the same that would have been on display had the gospels been exhibited in the British Library in London. Different generations of people from across the north-east region will be able to appreciate the artistry, craftsmanship and beauty of these unique national treasures.
	As the hon. Lady pointed out, this is the first time in about 400 years that the key relics from St Cuthbert’s grave, including St Cuthbert’s Gospel, St Cuthbert’s cross, St Cuthbert’s travelling altar and the Durham Gospels, will be displayed together. They will be in place for three months. I am delighted that the Heritage
	Lottery Fund has found almost half a million pounds to enable the display to take place. I have absolutely no doubt that these extraordinary treasures will attract tens of thousands of people from the north-east and around the world. I look forward to making the trip up to the north-east myself.
	The hon. Lady gave a detailed exposition of the journey of the Lindisfarne Gospels. It is worth recording
	in this Chamber that in the early 17th century they were held in stewardship by a parliamentary Clerk. How things have changed—in the 17th century, a parliamentary Clerk held the beautiful artefacts that are the Lindisfarne Gospels, while tonight the parliamentary Clerk is holding a petition to save the skateboard in the south bank.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.

Deferred Division

Town and Country Planning

That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 20 May, be approved.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 281, Noes 185.

Question accordingly agreed to.